On 24 Oct 1995, Eccy de Jonge wrote:
> Date: 24 Oct 95 09:00:52 GMT
> From: Eccy de Jonge <E.DEJONGE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger%jefferson.village.virginia.edu@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Caring-for, and Dasein
>
> Chris
> I fail to see how you (or anyone) could possibly confuse being with
> Dasein or think that Dasein is the basis of all beings either in
> Heidegger's early or late works. Heidegger certainly says nothing of
> the sort. In fact he explicitly states that being should not be
> confused with Dasein (perhaps what Heidegger says himself isn't
> relevant?) O.K?
Dasein is a Seiende, and "Das Sein des Seienden ist nicht selbst ein
Seiende." Which would mean that Dasein is not Sein. Yes, I have read
Heidegger, thank you. Confusing one for the other is not the same as
saying that one is the basis for the other, which is what I said; to say
that the subject is the basis of being is not to confuse the two. If, as
Heidegger says, language is the house of being, which is to say, beings
are beings only when spoken (which is not to say they don't exist without
humans; Heidegger denies that he means to imply that), then humans would
be the basis for the being of all beings. I don't think there is a
confusion there, and if one objects that that turns Being and Time into
some subjectivist tract, remember that Heidegger felt as much (sorta) and
that the content of the Kehre was to eliminate the subjectivist elements
in the early project.
As for the later Da-sein, the hyphenation indicates the "there" quality
of being, which "is" only when it is there. In this case, then, Da-sein
is the being of beings, qualified by the there that is the necessary
condition of being at all.
With regard to Kant, why not a historical thinker,
> what's wrong with that? Philosophers are, in any case, terrified of
> criticising their own tradition, this is what makes Heidegger still
> so refreshing.
Sorry, you will have to be clearer. My point was that I'm not certain if
Heidegger superceded Kant, or that Kant is supercedable at all, except
perhaps through a working through of his problematic (I'm thinking of
Hegel).
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
> Date: 24 Oct 95 09:00:52 GMT
> From: Eccy de Jonge <E.DEJONGE@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger%jefferson.village.virginia.edu@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Caring-for, and Dasein
>
> Chris
> I fail to see how you (or anyone) could possibly confuse being with
> Dasein or think that Dasein is the basis of all beings either in
> Heidegger's early or late works. Heidegger certainly says nothing of
> the sort. In fact he explicitly states that being should not be
> confused with Dasein (perhaps what Heidegger says himself isn't
> relevant?) O.K?
Dasein is a Seiende, and "Das Sein des Seienden ist nicht selbst ein
Seiende." Which would mean that Dasein is not Sein. Yes, I have read
Heidegger, thank you. Confusing one for the other is not the same as
saying that one is the basis for the other, which is what I said; to say
that the subject is the basis of being is not to confuse the two. If, as
Heidegger says, language is the house of being, which is to say, beings
are beings only when spoken (which is not to say they don't exist without
humans; Heidegger denies that he means to imply that), then humans would
be the basis for the being of all beings. I don't think there is a
confusion there, and if one objects that that turns Being and Time into
some subjectivist tract, remember that Heidegger felt as much (sorta) and
that the content of the Kehre was to eliminate the subjectivist elements
in the early project.
As for the later Da-sein, the hyphenation indicates the "there" quality
of being, which "is" only when it is there. In this case, then, Da-sein
is the being of beings, qualified by the there that is the necessary
condition of being at all.
With regard to Kant, why not a historical thinker,
> what's wrong with that? Philosophers are, in any case, terrified of
> criticising their own tradition, this is what makes Heidegger still
> so refreshing.
Sorry, you will have to be clearer. My point was that I'm not certain if
Heidegger superceded Kant, or that Kant is supercedable at all, except
perhaps through a working through of his problematic (I'm thinking of
Hegel).
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------