From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: Dasein, universals, particulars Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 05:29:04 +0200 michael, you remember GA 20 where H. states (p.223) that a snail (schnecke) does not establishes a relationship to the world whe he/she (!) comes out of its _house_ (_gehaeuse_), but that this means _only_ a modification of its (her/his) already-being-in-the-world. This cannot be said, states H., from water in a glas, i.e. if it could be said, then we should say that water has the way of being of Dasein. (H. is comparing _the subject and its inner sphere_ with a snail in its house). In other words, Dasein may not necessarily be related to being-human. There are many questions here: - what is the meaning of the term: _Seinsweise_ ? does it make any sense to differentiate _Seinsweisen_ (the Seinsweise of the dog is to _dog-ify_?!), whereas science admits only _eigenschaften_ - is there a common ground between the ways is _being-in_ of living beings? (cf. H. text on plants, animals and human beings regarding it openness, and H. remark on the specific richness of the openness of non-human living beings) - the relationship (foundational?) between Dasein and consciousness: we can be consious because we are open to the world (not the other way around) - if Dasein is a _neutral_ way of being: can there be an _artificial_ Dasein, for instance, or a non-human Dasein? Anyway it seems to me that Dasein concerns a specific way of being-in-the-world, but that H. identifies this with human-being without excluding other possibilities (or at least without excluding a conceptual difference between Dasein as a _structure_ and Dasein as _being human_) as a phenomenologist H. is interested in describing _what is_, and not in speculations. rafael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Michael Eldred <artefact-AT-t-online.de> An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Datum: Dienstag, 16. Juni 1998 19:16 Betreff: Re: Dasein, universals, particulars Cologne 16 June 1998 jim schrieb: > I have a question for anybody. ... > The question is: what is it in virtue of > which we Dasein resemble each other. Is there, or must we posit, some > one 'item' (a universal) that is not only repeatable, but which each of us > severally and separately instantiate? If that is the case, then how can an > essentially reflexive ek-sistere be the essence of Dasein??? If some such > 'item' is what renders a Dasein to be the Dasein which it is, if some such > item is what explains our resemblance, then that item cannot be some > singular ek-sistere particular. If this item were some particular, there > could only be one, unique Dasein, but several 'bare' resemblances. But > clearly that is not a position for which H argues or would argue. > > If Dasein is not a universal, then can we argue that each of the several > Dasein is its own particular nature, but that each particular Dasein > exactly resembles each other, and leave exact resemblance as a > primitive notion. Their resemblance is born from their own separate > natures. That is to say, in short, Dasein is a particularized universal. > > One response might be that the entire line of questioning is misguided. Yes, it seems to me misguided, Jim, since it presupposes that Dasein somehow has to fit into the categories of universal and particular. Dasein is not an “item” which can be attributed or not attributed to beings, nor is it a term for human beings to denote a “resemblance”. Rather, Dasein is a mode of being, and being is neither a universal, nor a particular. This is what Aristotle (as against Plato) clearly saw (cf. A. _Metaphysics_ 998b22 _...oute to on einai genos_ and H. GA33:35ff). Dasein is a mode of being in which humans ‘participate’ and by virtue of which they are ek-sisting human beings. Dasein is a name for human being, not for humans as beings. Dasein is the essence of human being, or, to use an archaic form of the verb “to be”, Dasein is human wesan, i.e. ek-sistence. We humans do not just “resemble” each other through having a particular “item”, but are the Same in essence (or nature) through ek-sisting, i.e. being in a certain mode. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005