From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-flash.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:03:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Meaning, reality, truth


Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote:

> The idea of reality (Realitaet) is, as H. at the beginning of this passage
> says, the idea of _pure Dingvorhandenheit_ . This is one (possible)
> interpretation of the Being of beings. Such interpretations (or _castings_)
> of Being are indeed not possible withough a Dasein who interprets Being. The
> difference between Realitaet and Reales makes possible, for H., to clearly
> differentiate between the existence of things _out there_ and the
> interpretation of their being. 

It is clear to the traditional realist that without the being that we are, there can 
be no "understanding" or "interpretation" (even under the traditional meaning of 
these terms). But what is disturbing to the traditional realist is Heidegger's 
further clarification that, "If Dasein does not exist, then there "is" no 
"independent" and there "is" no "in itself". This immediately and fundamentally 
separates Heidegger from any form of traditional realism. The reason I am 
harping on this point is that I seen countless students walk away with distorted 
views of Heidegger after listening to lectures from commentators who, wishing 
to make Heidegger more palatable to the traditional mindset, emphasize only 
Heidegger's non-controversial statement that beings are independent of Dasein, 
leaving out his further and more controversial clarification that without Dasein, 
there "is" no independent or in itself. For traditional realism, not only are beings 
independent of us, but also their "is." Without a primary emphasis upon this 
opposition between Heidegger and traditional realism, a traditional realist (such 
as Jan) will essentially misunderstand what is implied when Heidegger says 
from the beginning that the being that we are is simply "being-there." 

Anthony Crifasi


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