EPT
Anyone really good at Heidegger here?
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde1
Germany522 Posts
I have the book at home though, so I could look up shit quickly if need be. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
So, existenz is a way of being, a self interpreting way of being which humans are. However Dasein nonetheless always holds an idea of its own being? So not necessarily from self-interpretation but in order for an entity to be dasein it has to have the ability to have an understanding of its own being? | ||
|
Metallingus
Philippines468 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde1
Germany522 Posts
On June 07 2008 20:04 zulu_nation8 wrote: That would be great, I can only read the english translation so there are added confusions to the ones I would've had if I read it in firsthand. So, existenz is a way of being, a self interpreting way of being which humans are. However Dasein nonetheless always holds an idea of its own being? So not necessarily from self-interpretation but in order for an entity to be dasein it has to have the ability to have an understanding of its own being? yeah thats accurate. Dasein means being-in-the world and being aware of it. Also it doesnt necessarily mean to act accordingly to ur personal character like Metallingus wrote. I think what he means is the difference between "Eigentlichkeit" and "Uneigentlichkeit", which are different modi of Dasein. | ||
|
Metallingus
Philippines468 Posts
 | ||
Aesop
Hungary11238 Posts
"Dasein" is that form of "Sein" (there are obviously many) that not only interprets and interacts with the world around it (animals do that, plants as well to some extent) but that reflects about its own status in the world. As for what zulu posted, So not necessarily from self-interpretation but in order for an entity to be dasein it has to have the ability to have an understanding of its own being? I would formulate it like this that the "Dasein" has some phenomenological experience of itself, not necessarily with the ability to understand it in the sense as you "understand" how a mechanical device works or "understand" written instructions. | ||
|
Yogurt
United States4258 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Aesop
Hungary11238 Posts
On June 08 2008 13:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:It's like the Heideggerian starting point for his metaphysics compared to the individual transcendental conscious subject that was the starting point for Descarte. Precisely! That is why Heidegger is musing so much about his switch of perspective. His claim is that the everyday mode of life of the subject is central to analyse before you can go on analysing what the world around it looks like. Descartes always has this metaphor of "true light of reason" and similar formulations, indicating that what there is to know is readily accessible for the subject. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
Or is it that Dasein is human being as in the verb being, so that the only thing assumed here is that humans are. Which I guess is a very solid foundation. Even more solid than cogito ergo sum or whatever, "I think therefore I am." Because it's saying "I am therefore I think." Yes I know that's a kierkargaard phrase. If what I just said is right, then by assuming that we are, does that necessarily assume also that there is a world? I guess it does because if there is nothing outside of us(I) then we(I) can't be at all? The sentence at question is "This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possiblitlies of its Being, we shall denote by the term 'Dasein'." If by interpreting Dasein's meaning as "(a) human being(in the world)" it makes a lot of sense. But Heidegger clearly defines Dasein as an entity, and "entity which each of us is himself" is just the most confusing sentence ever. What does the original german of this sentence mean? Mainly the "each of us is himself" part. This is on page 7 or 8 of the german edition. | ||
|
Aesop
Hungary11238 Posts
On June 08 2008 18:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: Or is it that Dasein is human being as in the verb being, so that the only thing assumed here is that humans are. Which I guess is a very solid foundation. Even more solid than cogito ergo sum or whatever, "I think therefore I am." Because it's saying "I am therefore I think." Yes I know that's a kierkargaard phrase. If what I just said is right, then by assuming that we are, does that necessarily assume also that there is a world? I guess it does because if there is nothing outside of us then we can't be at all? This version is the correct one. The question is not a metaphysical one ("what is human being") but a phenomenological one ("how does it feel like to be a human being"). There is nothing wrong with this being some kind of "representation", as it explores the foundations all our beliefs necessarily have to rest on. In his own lingo, the experience "how it is to be in the world" is more fundamental than any investigation of "how the world is like from a neutral point of view". Therefore we have to find a description of "how it is to be in the world" before we can answer the second question. How it is to be in the world is something which does not rest on any assumptions about "what there is" but just tries to describe how that basic experience feels like. So once more, if the "how does it feel like to be" is the basis of any investigation "what there is", the question if there "are" other human beings or if there "is" a world is meaningless until the first question has been answered. On June 08 2008 18:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: The sentence at question is "This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possiblitlies of its Being, we shall denote by the term 'Dasein'." If by interpreting Dasein's meaning as "(a) human being(in the world)" it makes a lot of sense. But Heidegger clearly defines Dasein as an entity, and "entity which each of us is himself" is just the most confusing sentence ever. What does the original german of this sentence mean? Mainly the "each of us is himself" part. This is on page 7 or 8 of the german edition. Do not think in terms of "defining" what Dasein is. It is describing what Dasein is and essentially trying to refer to your individual experience. There is nothing to be defined or abstractly understood but to be personally understood. Just speak to yourself: Dasein is what I myself am and who is sometimes inquiring into the possibilities of his own Being. It becomes trivial at that point. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Aesop
Hungary11238 Posts
On June 08 2008 18:44 zulu_nation8 wrote: So in coming up with the term Dasein, Heidegger did start from phenomology in that he wants to describe the human experience, though unlike Husserl, he does not believe the experience is in any way a mental or conscious one. It would be silly of him to completely rule out the mental and conscious part - it clearly is there. But he wants to add some factors besides it. For example, that our mode with interacting with objects of the world is usually not looking at them disinterestedly but rather using them (tools), living in them (houses), communicating with them (humans), and most of the time we do not reflect over these things, we just do them. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
I'll post more questions when I think of them. Thanks Aesop, I would pm you directly but I want this to be an open discussion. | ||
| ||
