From: "Tudor Georgescu" <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
Subject: RE: Dasein for whom?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:23:40 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.




Dasein for whom?I found an illuminating passage which harmonises both
interpretations of Heidegger's saying "Nobody is himself, everyone is the
other" (Being and Time ? 27), , i.e.:


1. Shame on him he is not himself!

2. It's good that we aren't ultimately alone!


I quote from Lucian Iordanescu's Ortoontica:


"In the state of potential the existences (structures, entities, forms)
cannot be differentiated one from another. The potential, thought from the
perspective of spatiality is being defined as being a state in which the
existences lie one in each other. Starting from atoms and even from
sub-atomic particles up to the galaxies - this in the Structural Universe -
passing then unto the other universes: material, substantial, energetic and
conceptual we think each entity in part as being separated from every one
else. In reality, in the state of potential exists no separation. Even if
entitively they are differentiated, they have no individuality, and from a
spatial viewpoint all these are together. A drop in an ocean does not
disappear as entity but only as individuality. It shall be able to
individualize in any moment and from every part of this, when it will
abstract itself from its interior; when it shall pass from the state of
potential to the state of dynamics. The very vocabula place is being in this
case used i properly, because in potential does not exist the concept of
place (position, location). The concept of position  (to be found in a
certain place) is being found only in the state of dynamics".

If you are interested, then you may want to visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Intellect_Club

  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of allen scult
  Sent: Monday, 04 June 2001 22:17
  To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Subject: Dasein for whom?


      To: Jcrcia-AT-aol.com
    From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
  Subject: Dasein for itself?
      Cc:
    Bcc:
  X-Attachments:
  I am wondering about Dasein's "commitments."  In #31 ) of SuZ, we read:


  Verstehen ist das existentiale Sein des eigenen Seinkoennens des Daseins
selbst, so zwar, dass dieses Sein an ihm selbst das Woran des mit ihm selbst
Seins erschliesst.


  (Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein's own
potentiality-for-Being; and it is so in such a way that this Being discloses
in itself what its Being is capable of).


  Thus, understanding its own potentiality-for-Being would seem to be the
project "for the sake of which any Dasein exists." ( worumwillen je das
Dasein existiert)


  But when Heidegger speaks of Fuersorge ( solicitude?), as an essential
component of Dasein as being-with, he says "...as Being-with, Dasein 'is
essentially for the sake of Others." (Als Mitsein 'ist'daher das Dasein
wesenhaft umwillen Anderer."(#26)


  What does it mean for Dasein to understand itself in this way? Should we
read this as a prelude to Levinas?  That Dasein's self -understanding is
embedded in its relational being-for the-sake -of-others?  Heidegger seems
to imply this in #125  "This means it ( understanding) depends only upon how
far one's essential Being with Others has made itself transparent and has
not disguised itself(. . . wie weit es das wesenhafte Mitsein mit anderen
sich durchsichtig gemacht und nicht verstelt hat. . . )


  Or does Heidegger mean to allude here to the disclosure of understanding
through discourse.  In other words, that Dasein's understanding is
necessarily disclosed as a "teaching" to the other. Although Heidegger does
not refer to  teaching per se, how else would one  "leap ahead ( ihm
avrausspringt) of him(the Other) in his existentiell potentiality for
Being," or  " help the Other to become transparent to himself in his care
and to become free for it." ((verhilft dem Anderen dazu in seiner Sorge sich
durchistag und fuer sie frei zu werden"(#122)?


  This suggests to me that freedom is in fact a "freeing" of the Other; it
is a teaching.  And perhaps one learns to be free only through one's
freeing the other. This  would seem to have been the case with Nietzsche's
Zarathustra. Zarathustra had to 'go down" to teach the Uebermensch by way of
becoming the Uebermensnch.


  In framing the question as I did, I have probably made it more complicated
than it needs to be.  Which means I no doubt got it wrong!


  Allen





--

  Professor Allen Scult                                   Dept. of
Philosophy
  HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics":         Drake
University
  http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html             Des
Moines, Iowa 50311
  PHONE: 515 271 2869
  FAX: 515 271 3826

HTML VERSION:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of allen scult
Sent: Monday, 04 June 2001 22:17
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Dasein for whom?

To: Jcrcia-AT-aol.com

From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>

Subject: Dasein for itself?

Cc:

Bcc:

X-Attachments:

I am wondering about Dasein's "commitments."  In #31 ) of SuZ, we read:

Verstehen ist das existentiale Sein des eigenen Seinkoennens des Daseins selbst, so zwar, dass dieses Sein an ihm selbst das Woran des mit ihm selbst Seins erschliesst.

(Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein's own potentiality-for-Being; and it is so in such a way that this Being discloses in itself what its Being is capable of).

Thus, understanding its own potentiality-for-Being would seem to be the project "for the sake of which any Dasein exists." ( worumwillen je das Dasein existiert)

But when Heidegger speaks of Fuersorge ( solicitude?), as an essential component of Dasein as being-with, he says "...as Being-with, Dasein 'is essentially for the sake of Others." (Als Mitsein 'ist'daher das Dasein wesenhaft umwillen Anderer."(#26)

What does it mean for Dasein to understand itself in this way? Should we read this as a prelude to Levinas?  That Dasein's self -understanding is embedded in its relational being-for the-sake -of-others?  Heidegger seems to imply this in #125  "This means it ( understanding) depends only upon how far one's essential Being with Others has made itself transparent and has not disguised itself(. . . wie weit es das wesenhafte Mitsein mit anderen sich durchsichtig gemacht und nicht verstelt hat. . . )

Or does Heidegger mean to allude here to the disclosure of understanding through discourse.  In other words, that Dasein's understanding is necessarily disclosed as a "teaching" to the other. Although Heidegger does not refer to  teaching per se, how else would one  "leap ahead ( ihm avrausspringt) of him(the Other) in his existentiell potentiality for Being," or  " help the Other to become transparent to himself in his care and to become free for it." ((verhilft dem Anderen dazu in seiner Sorge sich durchistag und fuer sie frei zu werden"(#122)?

This suggests to me that freedom is in fact a "freeing" of the Other; it is a teaching.  And perhaps one learns to be free only through one's  freeing the other. This  would seem to have been the case with Nietzsche's Zarathustra. Zarathustra had to 'go down" to teach the Uebermensch by way of becoming the Uebermensnch.

In framing the question as I did, I have probably made it more complicated than it needs to be.  Which means I no doubt got it wrong!

Allen

 

--

Professor Allen Scult                                   Dept. of Philosophy
HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics":         Drake University
http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html             Des Moines, Iowa 50311
PHONE: 515 271 2869
FAX: 515 271 3826