My comments are below Lois's:
>
>
>On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, David Schenk wrote:
>
>> Yes, yes it does. However, my real question here is *WHY* is finitude
>> the primary condition for the possibility of authenticity and
>> inauthenticity? I understand the quasi-Kantian maneuver, and I agree
>> with your claim that in BT and in his other early works Heidegger is much
>> inclined to making such a maneuver. What I don't understand is how
>> finitude is supposed to be a necessary condition of in/authenticity.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
>How about: Heidegger is defining authenticity as that change in
>experience that is only possible through when one takes one's death into
>accout?
>
>..Lois Shawver
>eaee
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
I think Lois is right here. But I would add more, too: one has to remember
that IN-AUTHENTICITY, too, is "taking one's death into account," in some
ways just another strategy, albeit one of ostrich-like fleeing. Thus BOTH
inauth and auth are made possible by finitude, the latter a necessary
condition. In other words, the whole category presupposes finitude. To
test this, let's ask ourselves counterfactually whether the authenticity
cateogry would be possible were we immortal? It just ain't so is my guess.
We are caught up in finitude whatever we do/are; this is why it's a smooth
continuum and not a clear break/distinction between the two, and it's also
why it's not exactly a moral category, as people (eg, Sartre) used to
think. I don't see where to slip the "ought" in! (Though, admittedly, H.
does on occasion to speak as if it's somehow "better" to be authentic--he
just errs when he does this, is I guess what you have to say.) The whole
category just is our way of being finite, "doing time," time-ing.
But, David, I wonder if you are satisified with this? Is your question,
then, at this point, this: okay, so however more or less authentic, we are
all in the boat of temporality. Inauthentic as port and authentic as stern,
let's say. There is still, then, the question of why some are on one side,
some on the other, and what would occasion any move from side to side, in
either direction. Is that a helpful re-formation of the question? (Maybe
it's too spatial...) Can anyone answer?
David
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
David Blacker
Illinois State University
djblacke@xxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>
>
>On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, David Schenk wrote:
>
>> Yes, yes it does. However, my real question here is *WHY* is finitude
>> the primary condition for the possibility of authenticity and
>> inauthenticity? I understand the quasi-Kantian maneuver, and I agree
>> with your claim that in BT and in his other early works Heidegger is much
>> inclined to making such a maneuver. What I don't understand is how
>> finitude is supposed to be a necessary condition of in/authenticity.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
>How about: Heidegger is defining authenticity as that change in
>experience that is only possible through when one takes one's death into
>accout?
>
>..Lois Shawver
>eaee
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
I think Lois is right here. But I would add more, too: one has to remember
that IN-AUTHENTICITY, too, is "taking one's death into account," in some
ways just another strategy, albeit one of ostrich-like fleeing. Thus BOTH
inauth and auth are made possible by finitude, the latter a necessary
condition. In other words, the whole category presupposes finitude. To
test this, let's ask ourselves counterfactually whether the authenticity
cateogry would be possible were we immortal? It just ain't so is my guess.
We are caught up in finitude whatever we do/are; this is why it's a smooth
continuum and not a clear break/distinction between the two, and it's also
why it's not exactly a moral category, as people (eg, Sartre) used to
think. I don't see where to slip the "ought" in! (Though, admittedly, H.
does on occasion to speak as if it's somehow "better" to be authentic--he
just errs when he does this, is I guess what you have to say.) The whole
category just is our way of being finite, "doing time," time-ing.
But, David, I wonder if you are satisified with this? Is your question,
then, at this point, this: okay, so however more or less authentic, we are
all in the boat of temporality. Inauthentic as port and authentic as stern,
let's say. There is still, then, the question of why some are on one side,
some on the other, and what would occasion any move from side to side, in
either direction. Is that a helpful re-formation of the question? (Maybe
it's too spatial...) Can anyone answer?
David
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
David Blacker
Illinois State University
djblacke@xxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------