[quote=“Prismatic567”]
Define:
- to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.):
- to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe:
- to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly:
If we refer to Dictionary meanings; we get
Dasiein =
existence : self-conscious human individuality
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Dasein
(in Hegelianism) existence or determinate being; (in existentialism) human existence.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dasein
In wiki:
Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) is a German word that means “being there” or “presence” (German: da “there”; sein “being”), and is often translated into English with the word “existence”.
I believe the above do not represent an accurate representation of the term ‘Dasein’.
While in Being and Time Heidegger did describe ‘Dasein’ with various statements, I believe Heidegger did not define what Dasein is precisely.
Basically Heidegger do not believe in definition when discussing ontology, i.e. to make definite and to limit something in words. Heidegger’s approach to ontology is hermeneutical and phenomenological.
So, do you agree/disagree with the above?
If you think Heidegger did define ‘Dasein’ what is his definition of Dasein [provide reference from BT] and explain how such a definition is sufficient to represent the concept of Dasein?[/quote
?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿
Who am I?
I basically agree about the phenomenological genesis , in as much he considers the a priori ground that Kant categorically accepted, but hermeneutically found the transcendence , all the way from Aristotle’s logics incapable to unite all the different modes of being which made such transcendence present through time.
How could it be defined other then the various ways You listed them through the various references, because again, the semantic descriptions can not totally describe Being in, the structural changes that signify the passing of time.
Semantics and syntax are the current method to describe the different meanings associated with it.
I guess this is why he was reluctant to explain it, since he had reservations about a Sessaure who could not be envisioned post scriptively, nor sign theory .
My point is, that people who try to understand Heidegger’s intention, can not bypass this difference because simply, they will then generate A neo platonic model, as did Kant.
Heidegger tore into it, but he reverted to an analytic, whereas Kierkegaard I believe posed it as such, and such, but using an aesthetic mode of unification.
Seem to recollect this much from existentialism.
And for the same reason, I would imagine, you will omit most of it, where Heidegger was reluctant, such structural analysis by way of hermenautical analysis, is equally difficult. But who am I to argue, and an existential ‘hole’ defeats Dasein other than in a non singular way.
Sartre failed to use a social ground, because of the disillusionment he had with socialism .ca.1956, and that left the New Left to evolve out of that disillusion in the 1960’s, leaving those convinced, that it can still mean something objectively.
What is this objectivism?
Descartes reaffirmed the objective being, the reasonable man, where the subjective notion of who he-man, is, could be reasonably constructed, by by the ground of his being, the logos , which states, or assumes the basic idea: ’ I am who I am’
That basic idea, of self identity, appears simple enough, and in Greek drama, that identity was defined by the wearing of a mask , which defined a role, of who that character was, or was SUPPOSED to be. The character was assigned that role, probably by the gods, as Narcissus was assigned the role of self recognition, failing, punished by same gods.
This self recognition originated the notion of self doubt, hence the premise of the dialectic of development from the self as a subject to one of object.
How other to to use this process as a gain of objectivity by the only tool available, that is thought, particularly , the thoughtful , man, as the object of his own self, by the use of his reason
He is , after all reasonable, this whole idea evolving out of his being, that he can transcend hos subjective mode of representation(the Narcissus problem) into a recognition that he is not who he thought he was, (the other)
This deep recognition , the primal dynamic behind reflection , is the motive behind all transformative dynamics between the empirical and the analytic -logos. And at every moment in life, it appears as an instantenious idea, the assumed idea of the subjective basis of man. The object , or the 'realness of man as a thinking, reasonable object of his own, PARTICULAR being, is objective through his own self representation, as existing in time.
But this time is complex, because its at once the here and now, and at the same time. back when. Its both: now(timeless) and back then, or eternal.
The reasonable man can assume that the object(I’ve) of Being, is to gain eternity through individual existence, and man can actually arrive there, by the ideals inherent by the gods original intention to be good, just, beautiful, wise men.
The irrationality of this argument created a schism in men, that of what men appears to BE, as subjects sometimes disobedient to the godly laws, and what men ought to be, as prescribed by some inbred category of these ideals, as they ought to be. That’s Kant.
Heidegger emphasizes that the reasonable of man is questionable, and man as an object to his own self awareness is due merely to the perception of him as the other, and although he does not throw away the notion of an ideal self, be places it on a level of freedom of choice leading to the approbation of the will to be.
Man is thrown into this realization of his dual nature, a god perhaps who places him into a position of responsibility for his own being. Man is neither good or bad, basically he merely exists to gain the ground of his own objectivity.
Confession: I merely stumbling in the dark to presently find my own ground, my own reason for living: apart from, but at the same time, in comerade-ship with other searchers., and Lambigious comes to mind here.
Its not that I am not in the hole, as well, but I try to look in the history of thought, major theme which relate with generic congruence, to my particular existence here and now.
I can not be satisfied by a total mobilization of prior structural elements, just because of the failure of Descartes to do so.