Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:33:43 -0500
From: Allen Scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: Re: Dasein im Menschen


         Reply to:   Re: Dasein im Menschen
Rene's post about Heidegger's formale Anzeige in connection with the present discussion reminded me that the concept arises in Heidegger's writing during the early twenties when he was also  writing and thinking a lot about Aristotle.  If we think about the formale Anzeige as calibrating, framing  the relationship between Heidegger's phenomenology and people, we can see the first sentence of Aristotle's Metaphysics ( a foundational passage in Heidegger's reading of Aristotle at that time) as simlarly framing  the relationship between Aristotle's "phenomenology" and people.  

Thinking along these parallel lines,   the natural "desire to understand" becomes a "formal indication"  for hermeneutical phenomenology.  Indeed, I just finished teaching a course in Aristotle in which we read sections of the "Rhetoric" in just that way,  as giving us further  "indications" or "hints" about the relationship between the desire to understand, and the speaking of that understanding.  Our reading of the Rhetoric in this way was in turn grounded in  that first sentence of the Metaphysics as framing Aristotle's entire philosophy, an idea that Heidegger himself suggests in the 1922 " Aristotle Introduction."

Relevant to the recent discussion here, is that Aristotle's Rhetoric, Ethics, Politics, etc. are not so much about rhetoric, ethic, poltics per se, but rather about the phenomenological understanding of  Dasein's desire to understand these areas of human existence.  Again, I would want to conclude that for Heidegger, and arguably for Aristotle and the whole tradition of phenomenological ontology, the ontic (people as people, the subject as an individual understander/actor) is the site for the "Greater Thinking in the Making"( phrase borrowed from a Jewish theologican named Mordecai Kaplan), namely ontology.

Happy Christmas to all and to all a good afternoon.

thanks,

Allen


Rene de Bakker wrote:
>At 06:44 PM 12/23/98 +0100, you wrote:
>>Dear Tom
>>
>>>No, not "human-being" or "human reality". But, yes, I understand that he is
>>so concerned, about what is called human, but to the point that thegesture
>>of saying *human* as such, *even here*, won't do. But I am not saying:
>>"human", but *people*. This is different, and you know it.>
>>
>>In German we have different words for _people_ for instance: _Leute_ but
>>also _Menschen_ and in some contexts also _Volk_ (in cases, for instance,
>>where you say: the american people, das deutsche Volk, or Im Namen des
>>Volkes etc.; this word was of course perverted by the Nazis).
>>H. uses many times (also in BT) the word _Menschen_ (singular and plural),
>>for instance in =A7 4. The reason why he uses _Dasein_ is, as you know,  (BT =A7
>>9 and 10) to make a difference between the Existence as the way of being of
>>human beings (Menschen) and the being of things (their _existence_ or
>>_existentia_ or Vorhandenheit). This is a point of departure concerning the
>>problem of _Verdinglichung_ (being-a-thing) not dissimilar to Marx's
>>criticism of _Verdinglichung_ (and _Entfremdung_).
>>H. uses also _die Sterblichen_ (_oi brotoi_). _Die Leute_ would sound very
>>much like _das Man_: _was die Leute sagen_ or _was man sagt_. In Spanish we
>>use _gente_ in a different way. You find for instance in Ortega y Gasset
>>(who is in many regards connected with H.) an interesting essay on this.
>>_Pueblo_ is in Spanish different to _Volk_ which is in German _ethnic_,
>>while _pueblo_ means in Spanish _common people_ (particularly the poor). So
>>it is not so easy to explain why H. does not use the word _Leute_ if you
>>think about the English _people_. I think the corresponding word for it is
>>_Menschen_ (plural).
>>H. uses also the expression _das Dasein im Menschen_ (for instance in Kant
>>und das Problem der Metaphysik =A7 41 and, of course, _der Mensch_ as well as
>>_wir Menschen_ etc. Kant uses for instance _endliches Vernunftwesen_ (finite
>>rational being).  In =A7 30 H. connects Kants _Wuerde_ (des Menschen) with the
>>phrase: do not throw away the hero in your soul. In this case the _hero_ is
>>our own being: the respect for our own being.
>>
>
>
>Rafael,
>
>Very to the point, your quotation of "Das Dasein im Menschen".
> >Nothing more fatal then the concept of the "Kehre", this transition from a
>'subjective' to an 'objective' position, which should have taken place in
>the beginning thirties. Man is no longer subject, that counts for Heidegger
>from the beginning. He can no longer, as Descartes did, bring his essence
>before himself in self-evidence. This lies at the opening of "Sein und Zeit".
>
>The categories in "Sein und Zeit", which denote human existence, are "formal
>anzeigend', they are not used as predicates in propositions, as to describe
>states of affairs, they 'only' point to the problematical, that is in the
>heart of man. The fact that "Sein und Zeit" itself was and is taken as a new
>doctrine about man, as 'a book' - "everybody is waiting for "Sein und Zeit
>II", Heidegger wrote to Elisabeth Blochmann, but I am not writing books at
>all" - proves the power of a way of thinking, that brings everything before
>us, for which everything is object for a subject. Consequently one cannot in
>the end criticize people for thinking so, because in everything, that is
>spoken of, already reigns the sense of being as being-on-hand (Der Sinn von
>Sein als Vorhandensein). The intriguing here is, that that being, that is
>different from the being of things in the world, namely: existing, is in a
>(more or less) philosophical differentiation. already placed on the same
>level as the being of an object. While and by saying it is 'something'
>different, it is thought of as the same.
>
>The word 'death' in Sein und Zeit does not therefore denote the concrete
>ending, which will be there (Da?) for everyone, but finiteness as such,
>which can be pointed to, but not comprehended. It is rather the point, where
>the enigmatic of being is at its deepest.  Here there is no sub-ject, that
>is underlying ground, the ground is abyss (Grund-Abgrund). >
>In other words: We can take into our mouth all the words that Heidegger
>conceived anew and gave us, no one can prohibite that. When we intend to
>THINK something by them, we have to execute this same procedure of
>prohibition that Heidegger requires from the beginning, from his conception
>of 'factical life' on. But we want answers, rather than questions. Jaspers
>somewhere reports of his reading of Heidegger, how he is involved to the
>utmost and then again and again left with nothing in hand. >Heidegger has always stressed the provisional of his efforts. Also the
>concept of a new beginning is 'formal-anzeigend'. Only here the concept of
>the "Kehre" comes into question. In the prohibition of our customary ideas,
>also those about ourselves, it is possible that a removal, a dislocation
>becomes tangible. "Something" turns against ourselves, so that we neither
>know whether we are standing or sitting, maybe merely floating. The problem
>with an abyss is not that we fall into it, the frightening is the opening of
>the abyss. In "Unterwegs zur Sprache" Heidegger begins with the statement:
>Die Sprache spricht (speech speaks). When we open ourselves for the unheard
>of this sentence, namely that it is not us (as subjects) that speak
>initially, we don't fall into the abyss, rather: "Wir fallen in die Hoehe"
>(We fall into the height).
>
>     >
>drs. R.B.M. de Bakker
>Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
>Catalogisering Faculteiten
>tel. 020-5252368                   >                >
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Received: from ACAD.DRAKE.EDU ([207.28.190.11])
> by acad2.drake.edu (PMDF V5.1-12 #30567)
> with ESMTP id <01J5PIUKE59Y00BL86-AT-acad2.drake.edu> for allen.scult-AT-drake.edu;
> Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:56:57 CDT
>Received: from ACAD.DRAKE.EDU by ACAD.DRAKE.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #23424)
> id <01J5PIUJ5HZM003J88-AT-ACAD.DRAKE.EDU> for allen.scult-AT-drake.edu
> (ORCPT rfc822;as4481r-AT-acad.drake.edu); Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:56:56 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu ([128.143.200.198])
> by ACAD.DRAKE.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #23424)
> with ESMTP id <01J5PIUHCXJI008P6D-AT-ACAD.DRAKE.EDU> for as4481r-AT-ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
> (ORCPT rfc822;as4481r-AT-acad.drake.edu); Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:56:54 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: (from domo-AT-localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6)
> id IAA51201 for heidegger-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:44:53 -0500
>Received: from bs18.bs.uva.nl (bs18.bs.uva.nl [145.18.174.18])
> by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA77821 for
> <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:44:46 -0500
>Received: from R-d-Bakker.uba.uva.nl (R-d-Bakker.uba.uva.nl [145.18.109.248])
> by bs18.bs.uva.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA25279	for
> <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:44:43 +0100 (MET)
>Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:44:43 +0100 (MET)
>From: Rene de Bakker <rbakker-AT-bs18.bs.uva.nl>
>Subject: Re: Dasein im Menschen
>Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>X-Sender: rbakker-AT-mail.uba.uva.nl
>To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19981224145248.19ef666a-AT-mail.uba.uva.nl>
>X-VMS-To: IN%"heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu"
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
>Precedence: bulk
>X-Authentication-warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
> owner-heidegger-AT-localhost using -f
>

Allen Scult
515 271 2869
http://www.mac.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html



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