File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0111, message 212


Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:48:10 -0500
From: edwin ruda <edwin.ruda-AT-verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Lichtung




Aristotelos wrote:
> 
> > Hi Gulio,

> With regards to transcendence, I don't think it's wise to put it aside to
> quickly for an interpretation of Dasein as immanence? In Basic Problems of
> Phenomenology (GA 24) Heidegger writes that, summarizing his lecture to this
> point, "The constitution of the Dasein's existence as being-in-the-world
> emerged as a peculiar transposition of the subject which makes up the
> phenomena which we shall more particularly define as Dasein's transcendence"
> (pg H247-248). 

While it invites hurdles and unforeseen qualifications to put
words into nutshells, I would suggest a more direct path to
the notion of transcendence - that is, to first distinguish between
existence and extant. In Jud's leaf example, the leaf does not 
exist in the way that Dasein does; it has no understanding of
how it relates to other leaves, and certainly not to Dasein. It
is nature, period. Nature does not require us to exist of course,
while our lives surely depend on nature. Still, extants are not 
transcendent; if it is sometimes said that "nature speaks to us,"
(Merleau-Ponty), that too, is because Dasein transcends, not
nature. 

Edwin


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005