Chris. Thanks for the two posts -- I'm confused as to how you can agree
with two apparently contradictory positions, though. Either authenticity
is a value to be imitated or it's not.
Heidegger says specifically in B&T that authentic Being, Dasein's
comportment towards death (wherein it is its ownmost, i.e. where its own
being is most centrally at issue for it) does not mean thinking,
brooding, pondering one's own death. Death is not an event like others
and can't be "imagined." This means that authentic being is not a state
or condition of being authentic; it is not a "thing" to be or something
for Dasein to attain. If it were, then Death would be just another of
Dasein's possibilites -- and there would be no reason for Death to be the
place in which Dasein beholds itself in its ownmost.
There's a good treatment of this in Kisiel's book on the Genesis of Being
and Time, and I've also learned a lot from John Sallis's chapter on
Mortality and Imagination in *Echoes After Heidegger*. Check out
especially pp. 133 ff.
All this means that the clear and uncontrovertible didactic tone of B&T
still needs to be explained. But in doing this, we probably have to look
beyond some kind of junior-Heideggers' authentic Being philosopher's club.
Yours,
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
with two apparently contradictory positions, though. Either authenticity
is a value to be imitated or it's not.
Heidegger says specifically in B&T that authentic Being, Dasein's
comportment towards death (wherein it is its ownmost, i.e. where its own
being is most centrally at issue for it) does not mean thinking,
brooding, pondering one's own death. Death is not an event like others
and can't be "imagined." This means that authentic being is not a state
or condition of being authentic; it is not a "thing" to be or something
for Dasein to attain. If it were, then Death would be just another of
Dasein's possibilites -- and there would be no reason for Death to be the
place in which Dasein beholds itself in its ownmost.
There's a good treatment of this in Kisiel's book on the Genesis of Being
and Time, and I've also learned a lot from John Sallis's chapter on
Mortality and Imagination in *Echoes After Heidegger*. Check out
especially pp. 133 ff.
All this means that the clear and uncontrovertible didactic tone of B&T
still needs to be explained. But in doing this, we probably have to look
beyond some kind of junior-Heideggers' authentic Being philosopher's club.
Yours,
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------