Chrsitian,
[snip - my stuff]
>Yes, thats the correct transformation of the distinction, I have made
>between "what" and "how". Your explanation is great and very clear.
>Thank you. I like your style expressing difficult cases in clear
>words.
Thanks, my profs hate it. Perhaps it just intimidates them (smile).
>>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?
[snip - your stuff on "care"]
>Flowing is executing the self.
I like that a lot and it helps tremedously to clear things up for me.
Thanks., I also think that "executing our existence" is a perfect way of
putting it although "executing the self", taken in the wrong context, could
run us into problems. :)
>hmmm... at the weekend (...no haloween party _grin), the what and how
>distinction didn't go out of my mind. Heidegger makes another
>difference: He don't say: "What I am?", he says "Who I am?". This
>difference is similar to the first distinction. The tradition want to
>determine man with the what-question: what is human being? When you
>give an answer to this question, the determination is always the same.
>You need answering only one (!!) time. If you ask the who-question,
>you cannot give a determination be valid all the time. You have to or
>could ask this question in every moment of life - and there is in
>every moment another answer (because of the structure of time). No
>determination ("open").
>
>I hope, that you can understand my notes.
I think I do. If anything, the places where your English is not perfect
highlighyts what you want to say instead of clouding it over in words that
already carry with them so much meaning (I think it does anyway). I am not
very qualified when it comes to Heidegger and "time" (wish I had a better
grasp of it) but the end of your last comments sound a lot like something
Whitehead would say (but that is besides the point). Would Heidegger say
that one would have to answer the question of "Who I am?" with reference to
(and I want to ask this at a very superficial level without invoking ALL the
structures of Dasein) your "for-the-sake-of-wich" (das Worumwillen)? That
is, is "who I am" only answerable in the context of some larger light of my
own possibilities as Being-in-the-world? I was just wondering because it
would make a great argument for my political phil. stuff (school work) if I
could invoke something like this. It would also tie in very necely to the
way I would like to see the world (so to speak). :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
[snip - my stuff]
>Yes, thats the correct transformation of the distinction, I have made
>between "what" and "how". Your explanation is great and very clear.
>Thank you. I like your style expressing difficult cases in clear
>words.
Thanks, my profs hate it. Perhaps it just intimidates them (smile).
>>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?
[snip - your stuff on "care"]
>Flowing is executing the self.
I like that a lot and it helps tremedously to clear things up for me.
Thanks., I also think that "executing our existence" is a perfect way of
putting it although "executing the self", taken in the wrong context, could
run us into problems. :)
>hmmm... at the weekend (...no haloween party _grin), the what and how
>distinction didn't go out of my mind. Heidegger makes another
>difference: He don't say: "What I am?", he says "Who I am?". This
>difference is similar to the first distinction. The tradition want to
>determine man with the what-question: what is human being? When you
>give an answer to this question, the determination is always the same.
>You need answering only one (!!) time. If you ask the who-question,
>you cannot give a determination be valid all the time. You have to or
>could ask this question in every moment of life - and there is in
>every moment another answer (because of the structure of time). No
>determination ("open").
>
>I hope, that you can understand my notes.
I think I do. If anything, the places where your English is not perfect
highlighyts what you want to say instead of clouding it over in words that
already carry with them so much meaning (I think it does anyway). I am not
very qualified when it comes to Heidegger and "time" (wish I had a better
grasp of it) but the end of your last comments sound a lot like something
Whitehead would say (but that is besides the point). Would Heidegger say
that one would have to answer the question of "Who I am?" with reference to
(and I want to ask this at a very superficial level without invoking ALL the
structures of Dasein) your "for-the-sake-of-wich" (das Worumwillen)? That
is, is "who I am" only answerable in the context of some larger light of my
own possibilities as Being-in-the-world? I was just wondering because it
would make a great argument for my political phil. stuff (school work) if I
could invoke something like this. It would also tie in very necely to the
way I would like to see the world (so to speak). :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------