Winston. I want to offer a word of caution re the idea that Dasein is
something that we "simply ARE." (I'm citing your post from memory, so I
hope I got it right.)
While this is a right enough thing to say about Heidegger, it is
important also to keep in mind that this condition of Dasein's being
isn't so simple. It is rather Heidegger's point of departure, and is the
basis of a question that he never really gets the answer to: namely, how
is it that human being understands itself reflectively (is at issue for
itself) --how is it that Dasein's being can somehow double back and
reflect upon itself so as to be at issue for itself and how is it that
this SEEMS right to us, and seems to be the condition of being for all of us.
This would be a way of starting to answer the question of how Dasein is
different from being, and also why Heidegger thinks animals are not, or
do not possess Dasein. He uses the expression "world poor" (in History
of the Concept of Time and Basic Problems) describing animals because
they haven't got the founding principle of Worldhood, which is precisely
that possibility of knowing themselves reflectively, so as to have their
being at issue for them: this, Heidegger will later say is the foundation
of human consciousness, language, etc.
Also, I'm a little worried about your "children of a lesser god"
analogy. Without indulging in all the vulgar bullshit that surrounds
this question, I think it is pretty clear that Heidegger's politics were
not only motivated by his philosophy but were also "philosophical" in
their formulation and motivation. Historically, it is the case that he
did preach Nazism (to use another poster's terms), and it is perhaps the
most intriuging and difficult task to look at his work with his politics
in mind.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
something that we "simply ARE." (I'm citing your post from memory, so I
hope I got it right.)
While this is a right enough thing to say about Heidegger, it is
important also to keep in mind that this condition of Dasein's being
isn't so simple. It is rather Heidegger's point of departure, and is the
basis of a question that he never really gets the answer to: namely, how
is it that human being understands itself reflectively (is at issue for
itself) --how is it that Dasein's being can somehow double back and
reflect upon itself so as to be at issue for itself and how is it that
this SEEMS right to us, and seems to be the condition of being for all of us.
This would be a way of starting to answer the question of how Dasein is
different from being, and also why Heidegger thinks animals are not, or
do not possess Dasein. He uses the expression "world poor" (in History
of the Concept of Time and Basic Problems) describing animals because
they haven't got the founding principle of Worldhood, which is precisely
that possibility of knowing themselves reflectively, so as to have their
being at issue for them: this, Heidegger will later say is the foundation
of human consciousness, language, etc.
Also, I'm a little worried about your "children of a lesser god"
analogy. Without indulging in all the vulgar bullshit that surrounds
this question, I think it is pretty clear that Heidegger's politics were
not only motivated by his philosophy but were also "philosophical" in
their formulation and motivation. Historically, it is the case that he
did preach Nazism (to use another poster's terms), and it is perhaps the
most intriuging and difficult task to look at his work with his politics
in mind.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------