File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0105, message 10

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 02:36:13 +0100
Subject: Re: Ge-lassen-heit

Hi Rene,

well, no Amsterdam for me on those days, i'd rather stay "in der
Provinz" so to say ;-)

you wrote:

>"There could be a world without men". We're getting used to the idea,
>certainly. But what is 'being' here? Vorhanden? For whose hands?

i think that only men have "hands", but i believe there is more "being"
than there are "hands"; e.g. the being (reality) of colliding particles, the
being of rotating planets, the being of growing cristals, the being of
flourishing trees and so on..... the problem is to think/conceive "being"
not solely in an antropocentric sense

>Could there be a world WITH men, but without Dasein?

if men is essentially Dasein, then NO

>Yes, as far as all knowledge is self-knowledge. This is already proven in
>the deduction.

but how far is "all knowledge" also "self-knowledge" ?

there can be knowledges of which the self is ignorant;

- i mean, do you have the "knowledge" to lift your arm ?

- can we e.g. say that: "i have "knowledge" that i can see
  and i can give a description of the knowledge of seeing" ?
  [or cf. Wittgensteinian scepsis: what ignorance would
  such a description eliminate here ?]

>Now, because empirical knowledge is only possible through impression,
>impression must also be self-impression, Selbst-Affektion. See in the
>deduction: the determination of the inner form (Bestimmung des inneren Sinns)
>It is the decision of reason, as self-consciousness, to become the empirical
>subject, that eventually makes experiments.

if i understand you (and Kant) here correctly you are saying that
the conditions of the possibility of experience (knowledge) are in
essence the same as the conditions of the possibility of the objects
of experience (reality); but i find it a bit too dogmatic to deduce
from the fact that knowledge is an antropolicial phenomenon, that
there is no need for a proof of a world _out there_, because it's
all "the same" anyway !! ??

>Kant is by the way transcendental idealist and empirical realist at the
>same time.

yeh, TI and ER, according to Bhaskar it was/is this notorious couple
that has kept (an is keeping) modern science in the devastating grip
of Positivism

are there positivist traces in Heidegger ? what do you think ?

>>i would say the crux of experiments is "doing something", it
>>is the practical (manipulative) side of 'putting questions to nature',
>>and the fact that experiments are possible (and even neccesary)
>Necessary only, to go on.

but can we go back then ?
can we turn the arrow of time ?
[ok, some avant-garde physicists claim they can do it, but (only) in
'exotic' experimental settings]

>I think, H. is saying, that the letting is not (only) done by us.

mit freien gruessen,

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005