Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 03:02:55 +0200 (CEST) From: janstr-AT-chan.nl (Jan Straathof) Subject: Re: Meaning Rafael, thank you for responding to my rumblings, you wrote: (snipped) >Please take a look on Paragraph 43 of Being and Time (esp. at the end): >there Heid. clearly makes a difference between _Realitaet_ and _Reales_. >Whereas Realitaet is grounded on Dasein's being, _Reales_ (what you call >the world independent of men) is indeed, I quote: >_dass Reales nur sein koennte als das, was es an ihm selbst ist, wenn und >nur solange Dasein existiert_ (that real (things) as they are in themselves >could only exist in the case and as far as Dasein exists_) >What is _dependent_ on Dasein is Being not beings, just because Being is >_based_ on our (only?) understanding of being. Without a _casting_ of being >(or without any kind of interpretation, theory and so on) there is nothing >there to be understood. But in fact here i am in fundamental disagreement with Heidegger, when H writes: " Allerdings nur solange Dasein ist, .. , gibt es Sein" (ZuS,212) he imo implicitly assumes: no "Dasein" thus no "Sein" (no men thus no world). As i argued in my previous post, i don't believe this is right. On my realist view there exist a world / reality independent of men, thus imo there exist "Sein" independent of "Dasein". >take a special look on your second _the_ (there is no second _the_ at Kant: >The conditions of poss. of experience are at the same time (not: the!!!) >cond. of possib. of the objects of experience. >(reality is not exhausted by our knowledge apparatus and ... by languaje) on this Kant thingy we have here; i think you are right that i seem to misuse the place of some articles, i apologize for my bad grammar; >kind regards > >rafael yours, jan --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005