From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de>
Subject: Re: Dasein, universals, particulars
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:13:45 +0200


On Dasein as an exclusively human structure or not:
see, again, GA 20 (Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs), p. 223-224:
on the snail and the glas of water
and:
 GA 29/30 (Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik) on the connections between
Dasein and other living beings or between _Weltbildung_ and _Weltarmut_
(casting world and having a poor(er)world_), there is the astonishing
sentence (on page 371):
_was nicht heisst, dass das Leben (des Tiers, RC) gegenueber dem menchlichen
Dasein minderwertig oder eine niedere Stufe sei. Vielmehr ist das Leben ein
Bereich, der einen Reichtum des Offenseins hat, wie sie ihn vielleicht die
menschliche Welt gar nicht kennt".
roughly (in Pitching English) (until Michael can help)
_ this does not mean that life (of animals, RC) in contrast to human Dasein
is of less worth or on a deeper step. On the contrary, life is a region,
that entails an own kind of wealth (or richness) that the human world may be
does not know about."
kind regards
rafael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jim <jmd-AT-dasein.demon.co.uk>
An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Datum: Freitag, 3. Juli 1998 11:24
Betreff: Dasein, universals, particulars


>May I ask some questions here?ologne 02 July 1998
>
>> In other words, Dasein may not necessarily be related to being-human.
>Eg, with human who are in coma?
>> 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)
>If Universals can be interpreted as "ways 'things' are with entities," as
>different kinds of 'Waywardness', then, couldn't Dasein be seen, again,
>as a Universal. I know it is not a Universal, but this unclarity remains.
>> - the relationship (foundational?) between Dasein and consciousness: we
can
>> be consious because we are open to the world (not the other way around)
>What does the "because" here mean? It is not an 'ontic' "because," like,
>eg, cause, right? But it is essential, right? There is no worldless
>consciousness, right?
>> - if Dasein is a _neutral_ way of being: can there be an _artificial_
>> Dasein, for instance, or a non-human Dasein?
>In what sense "neutral"? In SuZ "Dasein" is specifically introduced thus:
>"Dieses Seiende, das wir selbst je sind und das unter anderem die
>Seinsmoglichkeit des Fragens hat ...," and so, it seems, that unless a
>creature CAN be recognized as "one of us" and CAN "inquire," then it
>is not Dasein. If a creature can 'inquire', then it already has
>understanding. Ie, the possibility of Inquiry is and that understanding is
>holistic, are the same, aren't they?
>Eg, can a dog inquire about where its bone is, or a snail inquire about
>where delicious leave are, eg, 'is the(my?) bone buried under the tree',
>are the delicious leaves over there? If they can, then musn't the dog and
>snail understand 'food', 'bone','tree', 'under', there, here? And if they
>can understand these, then mustn't they also understand many many
>other things? And so forth?? Ie, musn't their understanding look like our
>own?
>
>We look at dogs eyes; they look at our eyes. They were never taught to
>look at our eyes; we were never taught to look at the eyes of the living.
>A creatures 'being alive' seems to 'speak out' from the eyes. But the
>'experience' of "eye contact" seems very different among humans and
>between humans and animals??? I "know" Dasein when I "meet the
>eyes" of Dasein; but I cannot 'meet the eyes' of a dog, or a snail? (when
>people play really well at being a mannequin, and we cannot tell are
>they Dasein, we look and stare at the eyes, and wait until the eyes
>speak (I don't mean to suggest anything like Sarte's 'the Look', but that
>is a fact.)).  (Dogs are very very special; they have lived among humans
>for thousands of years. I canot look a  snail in the eyes).
>
>> 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_)
>If Dasein-as-structure must have 'inquiry' as a possible way of being,
>then whatever is Dasein must be "similar" to our Dasein??? Eg, isn't the
>alien ET Dasein? But it isn't human, and not Dasein-as-human?? But
>whatever has Dasein-as-structure must have a body! Dasein-as-
>structure must be open to a world, must be spatial; but it does not have
>to be human??
>
>Could a robot be Dasein-as-structure????
>jim
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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