Christian,
>Thank you William,
(please "Nick" or "Nik" would be fine - the Willoiam comes because the form
here at school only does that annoying "first name and middle initial" thing).
>your message was very interesting. I now understand the english-"am"
>better. I don't understand, what you mean with: the "how" "is much
>more flowing (organic, motion, be-coming)". The flowing, in my
>opinion, is the execution (i mean with this word the mental act
>(Vollzug), wich is the konstitution of intentionality. Do you mean
>this with "flowing"??
What I mean by flowing is (and hopefully this is kind of what you meant by
your "how/what" distinction):
Many philosophers (philosophies) saw "being" (to use the term in its
most vulgar sense) as am almost stagnant *thing*. The qusetion "How are
you?" would be, to these philosophers, most correctly answered with a list
of the things that you presently were (ie, I am six feet tall, have a sore
knee, am sitting down,...etc). These are the measurable *accidents* of
science. A great list of what we might call "facts". That is a "what"
answer and limits Being to an empirical entity.
In another example there is the acorn growing into the oak tree.
Looking at Being as a "what" you would *describe* this growth with a series
of pictures (for example) taken every five minutes during the lifetime of
the tree. Then you would say "See! This is how an acorn grows into an oak
tree." In a more *organic*, "How" description, the *growing* can not be
shown on a series of pictures. In fact, the growing is exactly what the
pictures can not show. The Being is lost to the camera because, with
thecamera, Being simply becomes a list of things that *are* at this or that
particular moment. In a "how" answer, the Being is the growing (the
Be-comming). It is movement and "how are you?" becomes answerable in terms
closer to "I am typing an e-mail" or "I am sitting in a chair", where the
emphasis would be (correctly, I believe) upon the action and not on the noun.
I hope that answers your question. I would have liked to have been
more sucinct but, unfortunately, "intentionality" is one of my philosophical
weak spots.
>In my opinion, there is no "care2". The late Heidegger don't write
>about care, but in my view he use another ( in Heideggers opinion
>postmetaphysical) term: "Seinlassen". This is (for the late Heidegger)
>the possibility to destroy will/volution. He means with "Seinlassen"
>the mental act to let things as things. The metaphysical tradition -
>in Heideggers opinion - control the things with the subject-object
>difference, the metaphysic don't let the object as a object.
I get bogged down because (when I argue with people who only know the later
works) they seem to treat "Care" as more of an action than I would allow it
after a thourough reading of B&T. I see "Care" as a term that describes
what Dasien is, not in the sense of "caring for my rat (or mom or brother or
friends or country etc)" but simply as a term that encompasses all of the
things like "being-in-the-world" and "state-of-mind" and the rest of that
lot. I can see the argument that Dasien is, in a very strong way,
"careing-for", but do not quite see it as that simple a term in B&T. Perhaps
I am waaaaay off base (this has been known to happen). Any helpful hints on
clearing this up for me?
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>Thank you William,
(please "Nick" or "Nik" would be fine - the Willoiam comes because the form
here at school only does that annoying "first name and middle initial" thing).
>your message was very interesting. I now understand the english-"am"
>better. I don't understand, what you mean with: the "how" "is much
>more flowing (organic, motion, be-coming)". The flowing, in my
>opinion, is the execution (i mean with this word the mental act
>(Vollzug), wich is the konstitution of intentionality. Do you mean
>this with "flowing"??
What I mean by flowing is (and hopefully this is kind of what you meant by
your "how/what" distinction):
Many philosophers (philosophies) saw "being" (to use the term in its
most vulgar sense) as am almost stagnant *thing*. The qusetion "How are
you?" would be, to these philosophers, most correctly answered with a list
of the things that you presently were (ie, I am six feet tall, have a sore
knee, am sitting down,...etc). These are the measurable *accidents* of
science. A great list of what we might call "facts". That is a "what"
answer and limits Being to an empirical entity.
In another example there is the acorn growing into the oak tree.
Looking at Being as a "what" you would *describe* this growth with a series
of pictures (for example) taken every five minutes during the lifetime of
the tree. Then you would say "See! This is how an acorn grows into an oak
tree." In a more *organic*, "How" description, the *growing* can not be
shown on a series of pictures. In fact, the growing is exactly what the
pictures can not show. The Being is lost to the camera because, with
thecamera, Being simply becomes a list of things that *are* at this or that
particular moment. In a "how" answer, the Being is the growing (the
Be-comming). It is movement and "how are you?" becomes answerable in terms
closer to "I am typing an e-mail" or "I am sitting in a chair", where the
emphasis would be (correctly, I believe) upon the action and not on the noun.
I hope that answers your question. I would have liked to have been
more sucinct but, unfortunately, "intentionality" is one of my philosophical
weak spots.
>In my opinion, there is no "care2". The late Heidegger don't write
>about care, but in my view he use another ( in Heideggers opinion
>postmetaphysical) term: "Seinlassen". This is (for the late Heidegger)
>the possibility to destroy will/volution. He means with "Seinlassen"
>the mental act to let things as things. The metaphysical tradition -
>in Heideggers opinion - control the things with the subject-object
>difference, the metaphysic don't let the object as a object.
I get bogged down because (when I argue with people who only know the later
works) they seem to treat "Care" as more of an action than I would allow it
after a thourough reading of B&T. I see "Care" as a term that describes
what Dasien is, not in the sense of "caring for my rat (or mom or brother or
friends or country etc)" but simply as a term that encompasses all of the
things like "being-in-the-world" and "state-of-mind" and the rest of that
lot. I can see the argument that Dasien is, in a very strong way,
"careing-for", but do not quite see it as that simple a term in B&T. Perhaps
I am waaaaay off base (this has been known to happen). Any helpful hints on
clearing this up for me?
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------