In S&Z (H. 44-45), Heidegger is explaining that to interpret dasein
ontologically, "the problematic of its Being must be developed from the
existentiality of its existence".
He continues: "Dasein should not be interpreted with the differentiated
character of some definite way of existing, but that it should be uncovered
in the undifferentiated character which it has proximally and for the most
part".
Heidegger immediately notes that "this undifferentiated character of
Dasein's everydayness is _not nothing_". Indeed, "out of this kind of Being
- and back into it again - is all existing, such as it is".
Then, "We call this everyday undifferentiated character of Dasein
'Durchschnittlichkeit'".
The translator's render this word "average".
Even though "average" may be the 'correct' translation, I find this rather
unsatisfying.
It seems to lose a dimension H. is referring to, i.e. of the possibility of
our mistaking the undifferentiated character of Dasein as "nothing". Why
would he explicitly warn us that it is NOT nothing. The 'throughness'
(indicated by 'Durch') has the feeling of a _transparancy_, a dimension
which cannot be (immediately) seen but is mistakenly _seen though_, as it were.
Can anyone relate to the problem I am gesturing at here? Are there any
alternatives to "average" in this context.
Cheers,
Brendan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
ontologically, "the problematic of its Being must be developed from the
existentiality of its existence".
He continues: "Dasein should not be interpreted with the differentiated
character of some definite way of existing, but that it should be uncovered
in the undifferentiated character which it has proximally and for the most
part".
Heidegger immediately notes that "this undifferentiated character of
Dasein's everydayness is _not nothing_". Indeed, "out of this kind of Being
- and back into it again - is all existing, such as it is".
Then, "We call this everyday undifferentiated character of Dasein
'Durchschnittlichkeit'".
The translator's render this word "average".
Even though "average" may be the 'correct' translation, I find this rather
unsatisfying.
It seems to lose a dimension H. is referring to, i.e. of the possibility of
our mistaking the undifferentiated character of Dasein as "nothing". Why
would he explicitly warn us that it is NOT nothing. The 'throughness'
(indicated by 'Durch') has the feeling of a _transparancy_, a dimension
which cannot be (immediately) seen but is mistakenly _seen though_, as it were.
Can anyone relate to the problem I am gesturing at here? Are there any
alternatives to "average" in this context.
Cheers,
Brendan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---