Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:43:58 +0000
From: Tommy Beavitt <tommy-AT-scoraig.com>
Subject: RE: Dasein


At 4:40 pm +0100 4/2/02, Jan Straathof wrote:
>      [btw. value, as such, is never just a question of perspective, for me the
>      basic rationale that grounds every (human) value is *the* perspective
>      to reduce suffering and/or ignorance]

Well, coming from a Heideggerian this is surprising to me. I had 
thought that my observation was orthodox existentialism. Maybe this 
just goes to show that there is no such thing as orthodox 
existentialism. Maybe it also goes to show that Sartreans are 
unlikely to share any common ground with Heideggerians.

But perhaps I am missing the point?

It seems to me that by using the (emphasised) definite article to 
qualify your use of the word "perspective" you are laying claim to an 
universal perspective. That to me is extremely surprising. Is this 
orthodox Heideggerianism? I have read some Heidegger but I didn't 
realise that it contained *this* implication. My definition of God is 
"universal perspective". So it seems to me that you are therefore 
claiming either to know or to actually be God.

It also seems to me that Sartre was right when he claimed that 
"existentialism is a humanism". I had always equated his 
"beings-for-themselves" to "Dasein" but whenever I have tried to nail 
down the meaning of Dasein it has eluded me. Beings-for-themselves 
certainly have perspectives: their perspectives are always defined by 
their own definitions of themselves and by their projects, which 
cause them to see other beings in instrumental terms. This can fairly 
straightforwardly be extrapolated to a theory of political economy. 
In fact, I don't mind admitting that it forms the basis for my 
understanding of the market within its social democratic framework.

It is absolutely axiomatic to me that it is impossible by definition 
for humans to attain to an universal perspective. However much they 
have attempted to think their way out of the box that is their 
constructed identity they will fail to attain to universality of 
perspective. My current criticisms of George Bush's America are 
founded on this premise. If we accept that there is an universal 
perspective and that it is attainable to by humans then how can we be 
sure that it isn't George Bush's and that he isn't therefore right 
when he pronounces, for example, that "terr'rists [are] evil"?

I would much rather stick to my ground which is that the best thing 
we can do is to deconstruct our own perspectives and those of others 
(particular those in positions of hegemony) in the hope that by so 
doing we can tend towards universality of perspective. But we can 
certainly never claim to have "got there".

This is, by the way, separate from the question of whether there 
"actually is" such a thing as an universal perspective.

If my interpretation of what you say is correct, and this is orthodox 
Heideggerianism, then I am afraid I have to concur with what others 
have said - namely that Heidegger was both wrong and essentially a 
fascist.

But I may be being too simplistic...?

Tommy Beavitt



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