Re: authenticity again

Lois. I'm still thinking about the question you asked re the passages
you cited, and want to look at them before answering you. But, very
quickly, the answer to your closing question would be, I think, that it
is *necessary* for a coherent reading of B&T for authentic being to be
understood not as a value but rather as the ground from which the values
proper to Dasein -- what Neitszshe talks about as the "revaluation of all
values" -- are permitted to emerge.

I think you're absolutely right about the way the language of B&T,
especially the sections on Guilt and Death, set up what you call
(rightly) a "value toned" reading. That was the reading I meant to
suggest vis Sartre and Dreyfus (although as Iain suggests, I didn't
acknowledge the power of D's reading -- especially since it was so
important to me personally). I think Heidegger is moving in the ten
years after B&T into a way of expressing authentic Being, not as a value
that a subject might possess, among others, but as the way in which
Dasein's being is at issue for it. In other words, authenticity becomes
the place in which Dasein finds what is essential about itself, the place
from which it proceeds in order to Be. It can't be a property of a
subject, along with, say, honesty, loyalty, and blue eyes.

Michael Harrawood

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: