On Saturday, June 19, 2004, at 02:06 AM, allen scult wrote:
What gives Heidegger the "right" to speak of Dasein as he does-as if it's any more than a projection? More importantly, why do I trust him, give him the right, to "speak for me" at least most of the time. . . and Jud doesn't?
As far as I'm concerned all philosophy is a story no different from other creation myths like Genesis or quantum theory. I approach Heidegger's work from the scientific or phenomenological perspective of the descriptive analysis of a phenomenon rather than as the received wisdom of a superior authority. Phenomenology is the 'how' or methodology of pre-empirical analysis rather than scriptural dogma.
Heidegger reports on Dasein because he is the only one capable of doing so for himself as the phenomenon of Dasein is in each case 'one's own', that's the meaning of Eigentlichkeit and Ereignis, and the emphasis on 'formal indication'. So you can read him as you wish, but the analysis is always in each case your own whether you interpret his texts as mere description or as some sort of Heideggerean dogma.
In a sense the analytic of Dasein is necessarily 'subjective' because Dasein as one's own existence in this world is not an empirical or 'objective' phenomenon. This methodological approach to the problem is layed out in both Husserl's early works from the Prolegomena of the Logical Investigations onwards and in Heidegger's Being and Time. They both explicitly state that you can't take them at their word but must do the analysis for yourself and see where it takes you. Again, it's the way of thinking, pathmarks, indications of a prior exploration that you can follow or not, the choice is yours. It's called interpretation and for me the question of trust does not come into it, rather there is a structural mistrust built into the phenomenological enterprise as no one else can "speak for me" but myself.
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---