On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, M.Eldred_artefact wrote:
> People will in-sist on translating "staendiges Anwesen" (there is also
> bestaendiges Anwesen with a fine difference in German) as "constant presence",
> "permanent presence", "persisting presence" and the like. In such translations
> the temporal sense is primary. This is misleading and, although one achieves
> 'good English' with such translations, they obscure the view of the phenomena
> here under discussion. It is better to have an unusual language that makes
> readers sit up and think than 'good English' that can be swallowed without
> having to think about the phenomena involved.
There is a very good reason why people translate it that way. Heidegger
did. (Although I might be thinking of "bestaendiges"). It was his
"ousiological" breakthrough, the realization that Aristotle and the
Greeks thought of being in terms of time, even if only in the mode of
eternity (constant presence). Thus Being and Time.
As for the rest of what you said, I would have to think about it further,
but off the top of my head, Heidegger is concerned with new revelations
of being, not with what could be called secondary historical changes
(i.e., within an epoch of being). Despite, or perhaps because of,
massive technological growth, there has been no new revelation of being
since (Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Parmenides, whatever). Furthermore,
the functioning of technology requires securing in advance what a thing
can be, specifically, securing it in terms of mathematical physics.
Because mathematics is the primary way of uncovering beings as constant
(i.e., the modal possibility that does not permit any possibility other
than the one it is), one could say that our spinning world of technology
requires being as constant (temporal) presence.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> People will in-sist on translating "staendiges Anwesen" (there is also
> bestaendiges Anwesen with a fine difference in German) as "constant presence",
> "permanent presence", "persisting presence" and the like. In such translations
> the temporal sense is primary. This is misleading and, although one achieves
> 'good English' with such translations, they obscure the view of the phenomena
> here under discussion. It is better to have an unusual language that makes
> readers sit up and think than 'good English' that can be swallowed without
> having to think about the phenomena involved.
There is a very good reason why people translate it that way. Heidegger
did. (Although I might be thinking of "bestaendiges"). It was his
"ousiological" breakthrough, the realization that Aristotle and the
Greeks thought of being in terms of time, even if only in the mode of
eternity (constant presence). Thus Being and Time.
As for the rest of what you said, I would have to think about it further,
but off the top of my head, Heidegger is concerned with new revelations
of being, not with what could be called secondary historical changes
(i.e., within an epoch of being). Despite, or perhaps because of,
massive technological growth, there has been no new revelation of being
since (Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Parmenides, whatever). Furthermore,
the functioning of technology requires securing in advance what a thing
can be, specifically, securing it in terms of mathematical physics.
Because mathematics is the primary way of uncovering beings as constant
(i.e., the modal possibility that does not permit any possibility other
than the one it is), one could say that our spinning world of technology
requires being as constant (temporal) presence.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---