> 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.
No contradiction for me because I take "value" in two senses: 1. Common
meaning - the end (telos) of all one's efforts (e.g. Bill values money:
he spends all his time playing the stock market; Heidegger values
thinking Being itself: he spends all his time thinking, reading, writing,
teaching) 2. Special meaning - something that belongs to a subject (i.e.
inauthenticity; thinking Being itself is authenticity)
So I have no trouble both agreeing Heidegger had values and agreeing he
repudiated them in order to think what first makes values possible
(authenticity). Hence I agree with both you and Lois! :-)
> 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.
In short, death is the shrine of the Nothing. So Being and Nothing are
the Same?
> 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.
I own a copy of Kisiel. Any pages I can look up? I've just been browsing
it. I'll have to get Sallis out from the library again. I'll check 133ff.
> 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.
Check out John van Buren's *The Young Heidegger*. It has lots of great
stuff. Maybe you can write an Appendix on authenticity for it?
Cheers,
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
> with two apparently contradictory positions, though. Either authenticity
> is a value to be imitated or it's not.
No contradiction for me because I take "value" in two senses: 1. Common
meaning - the end (telos) of all one's efforts (e.g. Bill values money:
he spends all his time playing the stock market; Heidegger values
thinking Being itself: he spends all his time thinking, reading, writing,
teaching) 2. Special meaning - something that belongs to a subject (i.e.
inauthenticity; thinking Being itself is authenticity)
So I have no trouble both agreeing Heidegger had values and agreeing he
repudiated them in order to think what first makes values possible
(authenticity). Hence I agree with both you and Lois! :-)
> 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.
In short, death is the shrine of the Nothing. So Being and Nothing are
the Same?
> 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.
I own a copy of Kisiel. Any pages I can look up? I've just been browsing
it. I'll have to get Sallis out from the library again. I'll check 133ff.
> 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.
Check out John van Buren's *The Young Heidegger*. It has lots of great
stuff. Maybe you can write an Appendix on authenticity for it?
Cheers,
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------