1. D. F. Krell translates the word "Ereignis/ereignen" as "propriates". This
word was concealed by all dictionaries to which I turned for a definition. I
assume that ereigenis is related to the root "eigen" and to the word eigenlicht
keit [i don't know any german ], but i still don't exactly understand what MH
is doing with this term and why Krell translates it as "propriates". My guess
would be that "propriates" somehow describes the process through which Being
manifests itself to Dasein such that Dasein can inhabit Being as its own,
proper environment; this is to distinguished from Authenticity in which Dasein
uses his own initiative to grasp Being as its own, proper Being. Does this
seem like an appropriate appropriation of "propriation" or can someone shed
some light on that which still remains concealed in my revealing?
2. for the past few weeks, i have been trying to teach myself The Later
Heidegger. if you are finding yourself completely lost in the overpowering
morass of jargon, I would suggest checking out William J Richardson, S. J.'s
book _Heidegger : Through Phenomenology to Thought_. He provides blow-by-
blow plot summaries of each of MH's later works in that readable, clear-think
ing style for which our Jesuit friends are so reknowned.
3. I have been reading much much too much of The Later Heidegger much much too
quickly. It seems really repetitive, liking he's hitting on the same themes
and using the same type of argument again and again. is this right? does it
relate somehow to MH's schpiel about how the self same ideas are repeated
through their differences [an idea which i can't yet really distinguish from
Hegel]?
-- mitch
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
word was concealed by all dictionaries to which I turned for a definition. I
assume that ereigenis is related to the root "eigen" and to the word eigenlicht
keit [i don't know any german ], but i still don't exactly understand what MH
is doing with this term and why Krell translates it as "propriates". My guess
would be that "propriates" somehow describes the process through which Being
manifests itself to Dasein such that Dasein can inhabit Being as its own,
proper environment; this is to distinguished from Authenticity in which Dasein
uses his own initiative to grasp Being as its own, proper Being. Does this
seem like an appropriate appropriation of "propriation" or can someone shed
some light on that which still remains concealed in my revealing?
2. for the past few weeks, i have been trying to teach myself The Later
Heidegger. if you are finding yourself completely lost in the overpowering
morass of jargon, I would suggest checking out William J Richardson, S. J.'s
book _Heidegger : Through Phenomenology to Thought_. He provides blow-by-
blow plot summaries of each of MH's later works in that readable, clear-think
ing style for which our Jesuit friends are so reknowned.
3. I have been reading much much too much of The Later Heidegger much much too
quickly. It seems really repetitive, liking he's hitting on the same themes
and using the same type of argument again and again. is this right? does it
relate somehow to MH's schpiel about how the self same ideas are repeated
through their differences [an idea which i can't yet really distinguish from
Hegel]?
-- mitch
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------