Re: Caring-for, and Dasein

On 23 Oct 1995, Eccy de Jonge wrote:

> Date: 23 Oct 95 09:41:02 GMT
> From: Eccy de Jonge <E.DEJONGE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger%jefferson.village.virginia.edu@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Caring-for, and Dasein
>
> Point 1: "Being-in-the-world ....does not say very much about
> Dasein?????excuse me, not only does it defeat Kantian subjectivism
> but it offers one of the only discourses directly attacking
> epistemology and offering a holistic definition of human being. It
> is true, it doesn't say very much...it says everything.

While being-in-the-world may useful, "defeat" is certainly too strong of a
term. If it really was so strong, no one would study Kant except as a
historical artifact, and that simply isn't true. At any rate, it
"defeats" Kantian subjectivism by deriding the neo-Kantian understanding
of Kantian subjectivism as a non-problem. While the neo-Kantians were
often brilliant, they don't have the last word on Kant.

> Point 2: Question: Can Dasein be the Being of all living beings...etc?
> I suggest that you read either Division 1 of Being and Time or
> Introduction to Metaphysics...you seem to be confusing Being with
> Dasein as if they are the same thing; this is a criticial misreading
> but a common error

If we were to be generous, Dasein, understood as the being that discloses
being, could be the basis of the being of all living beings (not their
existence, however). Because being is said in language, the being of
beings comes from the disclosure of Dasein as it articulates
being/world. It is at this level that I think Heidegger is right in
recognizing the subjectivity inherent in Being and Time.

Now if we take his later writings (I'm thinking of the Beitraege),
Da-sein is nothing other than the being of all beings, living and
otherwise, in its there. Whether Da-sein and the earlier Dasein are
equivalent is a matter of conjecture.

Chris


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: