From: Damon <dcentola-AT-marlboro.edu>
Subject: guilt.
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:47:44 -0500



As I understand it - guilt is the existential term for Dasein's way of being because Dasein is the basis of nullity.

As a basis, it is never more than its own base (i.e., it is bound to its hermeneutic) - but the "nullity" issue a bit confusing. 

It seems that some commentators feel that nullity means self-interpreting, and thus, at base, empty, while others feel that the nullity is the fullness of possibility (emptiness of actuality) that is Being-towards-death.  These views are not incommensurate, they are even, potentially, the same view. - but I would appreciate any clarification on the matter.

Guilt, then, is either the lack of ground of that IS self-interpreting Dasein, or it is the lack of possibilities that I am so long as I am (existing) - i.e., that even when authentic, I am still in a world, and so still guilty, still without the completion of Death: this lack of completion is the existential state of lack = guilt. 

Thank you in advance.

Damon.



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---