On Sat, 22 Jul 1995, David Schenk wrote:
> Not only am I imagining Dasein to have a fixed structure, I am quite
> convinced that it does, at least on Heidegger's account. So when I posed
> my question, I was asking what _ontological_ element of Dasein makes it
> possible for Dasein to ontically shift from authentic to inauthentic
> existence. Both authenticity and inauthenticity are grounded in fixed,
> constant, ontological structures of Dasein, and so they in themselves
> will never be enough to explain how it is that Dasein can have these
> contingent shifts in its basic ways of being. So there must be something
> else in Dasein's fundamental structure whereby this becomes possible.
>
> Does that make any more sense?
Yes. I understand what you're saying, but I am surprised. I hadn't had
such an interpretation of B&T. I don't consider myself an expert,
though, and I intend to challenge you. Still, I wonder if you would mind
referringg me to a passage or so that leads you to this particular
reading so I can see it the way you do. What I'm missing is grounds for
assuming that Heidegger is positing a metaphysical structure that shapes
experience either as authenticity or inauthenticity. Let me change
that. I don't want to see your 'grounds for assuming' it. I just want
to be able to see some piece of text that suggests that to you so I can
understand your reading.
..Lois Shawver
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------