File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9810, message 37


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005