Re: care for and dasein, Help for Information

Dear members,=0D
=0D
First: excuse my horrible english, i will try to improve it. I have no pr=
oblems to read and=0D
understand your discussion, but I am a very bad writer in english. =0D
Excuse me.=0D
=0D
I'm an new member of the Heidegger-lists and I don't know, if it's genere=
ll discussion of=0D
Heidegger's work or if you discuss slow reading of some texts.In the seco=
nd case, forget this =0D
=FFmail - or say me, wich text you are discussing. =0D
Thanks.=0D
=0D
If someone can help or send me some information, it will be great.=0D
I write a script for my graduate at the University of Bamberg -Germany- (=
no doctor degree) with =0D
=FFthe subject: "The foundation of morality and acting in "Being and Time=
"".=0D
Does someone know (english-) essays or books dealing with my theme (perha=
ps acting, conscience,=0D
will/volition, obligation and guilt???)=0D
=0D
Now, your discussion:=0D
First: I think, Heidegger is a very difficult thinker, because we must "t=
ranslate" every term of=0D
his speaking into ordinary language to avoid paraphrasing Heideggers term=
s. Most papers forget=0D
this - and say - nothing. Iread your discussion about Heideggers nacism a=
nd the formal question=0D
about "Being" and "being". It is very difficulty for me, to translate the=
english terms back=0D
into german terms. Sometimes I wonder about, because it seems to be tauto=
logical.=0D
But, I will buy the english-translation of "Sein und Zeit" to understand =
=0D
some terms you are using.=0D
=0D
I wonder about, that you are discuss the early and the late Heidegger in =
one way. The sentence, =0D
that the Language is the house of Being, has - in my opinion - nothing to=
do with "Being and =0D
Time".The late Heideger means with "Dasein" (Da-sein) the There of Being,=
the =0D
Heidegger of B&T means with "Dasein" only the correct term to characteriz=
e, that the I "is" =0D
itself as a self (=A72). The "is" means the execution, we "are" our I. He=
idegger asks, how (how)=0D
we are, not what we are. The what-question is the traditionell question o=
f anthropology. Dasein=0D
is the term for "I am": existence. Existence is totally different to all =
things (like =0D
Zuhandenheit/Vorhandenheit - and animals). Ok, you know it, but this is t=
raining....=0D
=0D
In B&T, Heidegger say "Sein des Seienden" (the Being of beings, for examp=
le =A73: "Sein ist=0D
jeweils das Sein des Seienden"- Being is everytime the Being of beings). =
Only this term=0D
characterize "Dasein". The late Heidegger say to "Sein des Seienden" "Sei=
endheit" (sorry I don't=0D
know the translation) and then: the Being is in difference not to the bei=
ngs, but to the=0D
"Seiendheit".=0D
For example: Kant has made a difference between the things and the catego=
rical and =0D
=FFapriori-construction of things as (as) things. Heideggers terms in the=
Kantian context: things =0D
=FFmean beings. The construction of a thing as a thing means "Sein des Se=
ienden" (Being of beings). =0D
=FFBeing mades beings as beings (For Kant: categorical construction, reas=
on,ideas). The late =0D
=FFHeidegger say to the construction (Sein des Seienden) "Seiendheit" (wh=
at made beings to beings) =0D
=FFand he use a new difference between the "Seiendheit" and Being.=0D
=0D
Conclusion: In my opinion we have to make a difference between Being1 (B&=
T) and Being2 (late =0D
=FFHeidegger).=0D
=0D
Being1: Sein des Seienden (later called "Seiendheit)=0D
Being2: Sein der Seiendheit=0D
B&T: Difference between Being and being (The Being of beings)=0D
Late Heidegger: Difference between Being and "The Being of beings"=0D
=0D
Oh, I hope my english is not too confusing to you, have patience with me.=
=0D
=0D
Heidegger gives only one time a definition, what he want to say with "bei=
ngs" (B&T,=A71,p.6 in the =0D
german-text): beings is everything (really everything) to what we say "is=
" (also our ideas, our =0D
=FFmind, our body, etc...). Only with this sentence, Heidegger write how =
he understand "beings" - =0D
=FFnot more!=0D
=0D
=0D
The animals (Heidegger use the term "worldpoor" in GA 29/30) are not "Das=
ein" because they "are" =0D
not in the difference of beings and Being. They could not execute her Bei=
ng in relation of her =0D
=FFBeing. They have ("have" is not correct) no Being because they don't t=
ranscendate themself as =0D
=FFbeings. =0D
They are only in the execution but not in relation to the execution. In t=
raditional words: they =0D
don't reflect.=0D
=0D
=0D
Now I am tired.=0D
=0D
Christian=0D
chrlotz@xxxxxxx=0D


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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

Partial thread listing: