From: "Laurence Paul Hemming" <lph-AT-dircon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Self-evidently so ...
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 15:55:12 +0100


Dear Mike,

Perhaps existence gives Dasein to be, existence does not give the tree to
be.  Existence gives Dasein to know the being of (the "to be" of) the tree.

Your question about women is very interesting indeed.  Is 'woman' a mode of
being of Dasein (in this sense so too would 'man' be)?  If it is, then the
question of the "how" of woman as a mode of being of Dasein arises.  Which
seems to me to be just right.  Isn't it De Beauvoir who says that "women do
not exist at all, woman has to attain her existence?"  Certainly such an
"attaining" as a "how" and the "now" of "woman discovering herself to need
to be attained" would explain and historically place much current gender
theory.  It also ties in with some remarks of Heidegger's about Geschlecht
(which can be roughly translated as gender) in relation to Nietzsche and his
Zarathustra-interpretation.

Very fruitful for thinking about.

What is interesting about the GA40 passage (trees are but do not exist, God
is but does not exist etc.) is that each of the things named is different
from the others, as if the essence of each (das Wesen) differs or is
differed in some way.

A final point: Eckhart, I am sure, believed that God "is" but does not
exist.

Laurence


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike
> Staples
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 1998 12:55 AM
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: Re: Self-evidently so ...
>
>
> Laurence Paul Hemming wrote:
>
> > part of the complication here is that I am not at all sure Heidegger
> > thought
> > "God is a being" - in fact I'm convinced he didn't.
>
> Me too.
>
> >  Certainly God does not
> > "exist" (cf. for instance, GA40: "Trees are, but do not
> exist, God is,
> > but
> > does not exist ..." there are statements of this kind in a number of
> > places) - only Dasein as such exists (existence meaning being that
> > being for
> > whom the being of being can be an issue).
>
> I have heard many interpretations of the term existence before, but
> yours is very nicely put. I had not quite thought of
> existence in quite
> this way before. Do women exist?
>
> It is so strange. This statement, paraphrased, is on page 14
> of Dreyfus'
> Being-in-the-world. I have it all marked up and highlighted.
> And yet, it
> had not occured to me quite this way. But let me ask a basic question
> here again: If the tree does not exist, and its Being is in
> part tied to
> Dasein, then in the abscence of Dasein, what could we say
> bout the tree?
> We cannot say that it  exists in the abscence of Dasein...because it
> never existed in the first place. We cannot say that it is still
> "there", because without Dasein there is no "there" there.
> And we cannot
> say that it still "is" because the "is" is the "there" that
> isn't there.
> So, what can we say about the tree in the abscence of Dasein?
> Is there a
> simple aswer here?
>
> Michael Staples
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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