Winston,
[snip]
>With this last comment made by (???) Anthony, I see a new problem arising.
>I've never understood Heidegger as claiming that Dasein "had" Being. It is
>not that which Dasein and only Dasein possess. Being is that in which all
>presences have a share. Dasein, unlike objects and animals, both has, and
>does not have Being.
Dasein has Being, Dasein can not not-have Being. Dasein can
"Cease-to-Be" but can not "be" (exist), without Being (existence) and still
be Dasein (or anything else for that matter). Animals have Being, but Being
is not a concern to them, hence they are not Dasein. I think you are
confusing "Being-towards-the-end" with "not have[ing] Being" (as far as B&T
goes, in any case).
There may be an argument which would point towards Dasein being
separated from non-Dasein by virtue of the fact that "Being-towards-the-end"
is Dasein dependent but I would have to do some re-reading to check this. I
would certainly say, however (and without the re-reading), that entities can
"cease-to-be" whether they are Dasein or not. It would be a good question
to explore, however, whether entities other than Dasein have
"Being-towards-the-end" as part of their character and (as a sub-question)
whether this is important to Heidegger's concept of Being at all. I doubt it
is since the whole "Death" thing, by Heidegger's own admission, is simply
*one* way to get from Division 1 to Division 2 (although he doesn't use the
Division part). That in mind, I doubt that you could separate Dasein and
non-Dasein in this way.
Does that clarify anything? :)
[snip]
>Philosophy is then extendable beyond Dasein, in his relationship with Being,
>through the nature of that relationship; that is, to the extent that Dasein
>is within Being.
I would have to say that the statement "within Being" leads down a
metaphysical pathway that Heidegger wants to avoid. There is no "within
Being". Being is not a "thing" that we can be "within" as it lacks the
characteristics of an entity. (See B&T, INT. 1, I.2., pg. 4). I feel, for
want of a better word, that saying "has Being" is a much better way of
stating what you may mean. All entities have Being. There can be no
"extent" which an entity is "within Being". You can not even say that an
entity either "has" or "does not have" Being. "Being is always the Being of
an entity" (may not be an exact quote) does not mean that an entity can "be"
without Being or that an entity can be spoken of as "within" Being. It
simply exists. It is this existence that Heidegger (and everyone else
looking into this sort of thing) is looking for. Being itself, that is.
>Being, as seen through Dasein, is applicable to all beings in their
>relationship with Being -- objects, animals, and Dasein itself (although
>this is a more difficult issue).
Again, I would be hesitant about saying "relationship with Being", since you
can not *not* be in a relationship with Being, and using the language of
metaphysics drags things into the equation that you do not want to have
kicking around.
All of this is just one guys opinion mind you. :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
[snip]
>With this last comment made by (???) Anthony, I see a new problem arising.
>I've never understood Heidegger as claiming that Dasein "had" Being. It is
>not that which Dasein and only Dasein possess. Being is that in which all
>presences have a share. Dasein, unlike objects and animals, both has, and
>does not have Being.
Dasein has Being, Dasein can not not-have Being. Dasein can
"Cease-to-Be" but can not "be" (exist), without Being (existence) and still
be Dasein (or anything else for that matter). Animals have Being, but Being
is not a concern to them, hence they are not Dasein. I think you are
confusing "Being-towards-the-end" with "not have[ing] Being" (as far as B&T
goes, in any case).
There may be an argument which would point towards Dasein being
separated from non-Dasein by virtue of the fact that "Being-towards-the-end"
is Dasein dependent but I would have to do some re-reading to check this. I
would certainly say, however (and without the re-reading), that entities can
"cease-to-be" whether they are Dasein or not. It would be a good question
to explore, however, whether entities other than Dasein have
"Being-towards-the-end" as part of their character and (as a sub-question)
whether this is important to Heidegger's concept of Being at all. I doubt it
is since the whole "Death" thing, by Heidegger's own admission, is simply
*one* way to get from Division 1 to Division 2 (although he doesn't use the
Division part). That in mind, I doubt that you could separate Dasein and
non-Dasein in this way.
Does that clarify anything? :)
[snip]
>Philosophy is then extendable beyond Dasein, in his relationship with Being,
>through the nature of that relationship; that is, to the extent that Dasein
>is within Being.
I would have to say that the statement "within Being" leads down a
metaphysical pathway that Heidegger wants to avoid. There is no "within
Being". Being is not a "thing" that we can be "within" as it lacks the
characteristics of an entity. (See B&T, INT. 1, I.2., pg. 4). I feel, for
want of a better word, that saying "has Being" is a much better way of
stating what you may mean. All entities have Being. There can be no
"extent" which an entity is "within Being". You can not even say that an
entity either "has" or "does not have" Being. "Being is always the Being of
an entity" (may not be an exact quote) does not mean that an entity can "be"
without Being or that an entity can be spoken of as "within" Being. It
simply exists. It is this existence that Heidegger (and everyone else
looking into this sort of thing) is looking for. Being itself, that is.
>Being, as seen through Dasein, is applicable to all beings in their
>relationship with Being -- objects, animals, and Dasein itself (although
>this is a more difficult issue).
Again, I would be hesitant about saying "relationship with Being", since you
can not *not* be in a relationship with Being, and using the language of
metaphysics drags things into the equation that you do not want to have
kicking around.
All of this is just one guys opinion mind you. :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------