Dasein

dwell (dictionary.com/browse/dwell?s=t)
[ dwel ]
verb (used without object), dwelt or dwelled, dwell·ing.
to live or stay as a permanent resident; reside.
to live or continue in a given condition or state: to dwell in happiness.
to linger over, emphasize, or ponder in thought, speech, or writing (often followed by on or upon): to dwell on a particular point in an argument.
(of a moving tool or machine part) to be motionless for a certain interval during operation.

There is a case for my translation of dwelling as “verweilen”, even though in the colloquial it will always be regarded as “wohnen”. Reside may also translate as “wohnen”, but if I write in German that I “verweile” somewhere, I suggest that it is a lingering, tarrying, or is temporary, “sich an einem bestimmten Ort für eine Weile aufhalten, für eine kürzere Zeit bleiben“ as against saying “ich wohne”, which is definitely “to live” somewhere.

I didn’t mean to reduce the text in any way, but don’t you get the feeling that philology can get caught up in semantics? I have a friend who is a philologist and he has opened biblical texts in a fascinating way, showing the depth of Hebrew and Greek in comparison to Latin. A text tends to mean a lot more when he adds his perspective. But he too suggested that we not get caught up in ancient texts too much, because otherwise we get caught up in an ivory tower and lose contact with life. He said that his studies were much like the internet (before there was an internet) in which he could spend hours and forget to eat or drink.

This is what I mean. There is cultivation that comes from how creatures are “wired” to do something and cultivation that brings societies progressively forward. Agriculture, for example, helped overcome the daily struggle to find something to eat, although primitive culture was around when performing the rituals connected to hunting. Today, I get the feeling that we are forgetting the culture and instead, submitting ourselves unconsciously to sub-cultures, thereby foregoing the progress that culture has brought us as a society, and we fail to learn the lessons that got us there. If we had to pick up the pieces after some kind of conflict, we would probably start over again.

Yes, indeed - I am Dutch and speak a fair bit of German having lived in Vienna, and the languages being quite close.
Indeed, the argument against “verweilen” here, which does intuitively very much compute with “dwelling” is that it isn’t permanent, that one isn’t cultivating a home.

I would argue that getting lost in such powerful ancient works is life - very much so! I find the ancient languages I have some teaching in to be very refreshing and often bring a more acute sense of reality than the language in which we are used to … verweilen.

It breaks automatisms, of our nation, and in general of modernity. But more than that, there simply is such immense life in much ancient literature.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Martin Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

I agree.

The following is something I posted in the thread "Are Protestants more nihilistic than Catholics?", that is, in a different context:

We’ll need a context of course.

And, of course, here, some will start with the Nazis.

post duplicated for a reason that, as far as I know, is beyond anything that I did

Dasein – Wikipedia

Translation:
Hegel defines Dasein in his Encyclopaedia as determinate being (quality), as “the unity of being and nothingness, in which the immediacy of these determinations and thus in their relation their contradiction has disappeared, - a unity in which they are only moments”.

Because Dasein is subject to becoming, to arising and passing away, and is to be regarded as something changeable, in Hegel’s dialectic logic it is the basic determination of every something. For him, a something set in this way is what it is only through its boundary with respect to others. However, he points out that he does not mean the quantitative, but the qualitative limit.

I think that this is important because it isn’t a particular mode of being, except seen from the outside by others, but a Werdegang (development) in someone’s life. That is, it can seem to be a particular something from the outside, but speaking from the experience of Dasein, it is part of a flowing process.
It shows that clarification is needed when using the word, and that, taking Hegel and Heidegger as examples, it doesn’t mean one thing for all.

So true, yet it is probably why Heidegger made that point about the dual definition of das ein & dasein.

I make no excuses in not being able to refer to it without search, it has become a process like that which describes the condition of the mathematician programming inherently incapable of not being fully conscious of deriving the quadratic equation. before applying it.

Agreed.


A rather general note on the comparison between “Dasein” and “Sosein”:

“Dasein” (from: “da sein” = “to be there”) = “being there”, “existence”, “existentia”.
“Sosein” (from: “so sein” = “to be so”) = “being so”, “essence”, “essentia”.

There is no Dasein without Sosein and no Sosein without Dasein. All Sosein of something “is” itself also Dasein of something, and all Dasein of something “is” itself also Sosein of something. Only the something is not one and the same here. Example: the Dasein of the tree at a place is itself a Sosein of the forest, because without it the forest would be different; the Dasein of a limb at the tree is a Sosein of the tree; the Dasein of a branch is a Sosein of the limb etc… The Dasein of the one is always at the same time the Sosein of the other. This series can be extended to both sides and also reversed.


Up to the 18th century, philosophy simply presupposed the „Seiendes“ and the „Sein“ and thus also the „Dasein“, thus never questioned it, never investigated it, never explored it. Kant (1724-1804) was the first philosopher who dealt with it when he founded anthropolgy. Among others, Hamann (1730-1788), Herder (1744-1803), Goethe (1749-1832), Schiller (1759-1805) and with an even sharper investigation Hegel (1770-1831) followed. Then Hölderlin (1770-1843), Schelling (1775-1854), Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Stirner (1806-1856), Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Marx (1818-1883), Engels (1820-1895), Dilthey (1833-1922), Nietzsche (1844-1900), Freud (1856-1939), Husserl (1859-1938), Spengler (1880-1936), Jaspers (1883-1969) and others should also be mentioned in this regard. But it started really intensively with Heidegger (1889-1976).

Selected quotes in my translated form:

„This Seiende, which we ourselves ever are …, we grasp terminologically as the Dasein.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.

„Dasein, i.e. das Sein of (hu)man is … the living (creature), whose being is essentially determined by the ability to speak.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.

In Dasein there is an essential tendency towards closeness.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 23, p. 105.

„Dasein understands itself first and for the most part from its world, and the co-existence (Mitdasein = Withdasein) of the others is often encountered from what is present in the inner world.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 26, p. 120.

The “Sein” of that “Seiende”, which is the “Dasein”, is the “Sorge” (“care”, “concern”, “worry”, …). Heidegger devoted in his book “Sein und Zeit” an entire chapter to “Sorge”, entitled “Sorge als Sein des Daseins” (6th chapter, § 39-44, pp. 180-230).

“Dasein” is “Besorgen” (“getting”, “providing”, “procuring”, “buying”) in relation to the environment, and “Dasein” is “Fürsorge” (“welfare”, “care”, “aid”) in relation to “Mitmenschen” (“withmen”, other, fellow human beings). In the “Sorge” the three structural moments of “Dasein” are brought together: (1.) the “Sich-vorweg-Sein” (“being ahead of oneself”), (2.) the “Geworfenheit” (“thrownness”), (3.) the “Verfallen” (“falling under”, “beholding”, “addicting”). “Sorge” is something like a “‘hearing’ of Sein”. The call of the “Sorge” is the “Gewissen” (conscience).

So it is the conscience as the call of the “Sorge” that calls man to and back from the lostness to the “Man” (“Man” means “man” in the sense of the “usual, unquestioned doing of the mass”, also as it is often used in “one”, e.g. “one does this”, “one does that”, “one reads the newspare as one raeds the newspaper” etc.) into the freedom on the ground of the nothing(ness). It is this call that makes the movement of the actual self becoming possible. The “wanting/will to have conscience” constitutes the actual “Seinkönnen” (“being can”, thus: “being able”) of the Dasein.

In understanding Heidegger’s philosophy, I think it is better not to translate the German words, because the English language has no equivalents for them, which is especially true of the many derivatives from a root word that can be used infinitely in German, but not in English. For example: “Sorge”, “sorgen”, “sorglos”, “sorgelos”, “sorgevoll”, “Sorgen”, “sorgen”, “sorgend”, “besorgt”, “Besorgen”, “besorgen”, “besorgend”, “Besorgung”, “Fürsorge”, “Fürsorgen”, “fürsorgen”, “fürsorgend”, “fürsorglos”, “fürsorgevoll”, fürsorgelos, “Umsorge”, “Umsorgen”, “umsorgen”, “umsorgend”, “Umsorgung”, Versorge", “Versorgen”, “versorgen”, “versorgend”, “Versorgung”, “Vorsorge”, “vorsorgen”, “Vorsorgen”, “vorsorgend”, “Nachsorge”, “Nachsorgen”, “nachsorgen”, “nachsorgend”, “Mitsorge”, “Mitsorgen”, “mitsorgen”, “mitsorgend”, “Rundumsorge”, “Rundumsorgen”, “rundumsorgen”, “rundumsorgend”, , “Rundumfürsorge”, “Rundumfürsorgen”, , “rundumfürsorgen”, “rundumfürsorgend”, “Überversorgung”, “Überversorgen”, , “überversorgen”, “überversorgt”, “Unterversorgung”, “Unterversorgen”, “unterversorgen”, “unterversorgt”, “Zwischenversorgung”, “Zwischenversorgen”, “zwischenversorgen”, “zwischenversorgend”, “Entsorgung”, “Entsorgen”, “entsorgen”, “entsorgend”, “Hinterhersorge”, “Hinterhersorgen”, “hinterhersorgen”, “hinterhersorgend”, “Vollumsorge”, “Vollumsorgung”, “Vollumsorgen”, “vollumsorgen”, “vollumsorgend” … etc. etc. etc. …, in principle derivable to infinity and composable like almost all German words, no matter what kind of word it is.

Heiddegger spent the entire book “Being and Time” explaining what he meant by dasein because he saw it as the key to fundamental ontology. However he never finished the book because along the way he realized that fundamental ontology is impossible because of the problem of historicity in which understanding of being is always embedded in a historical moment which conceals as much as it reveals.

Heidegger mentioned in his preliminary remarks to the seventh edition in 1953:

The “historicity in which understanding of being is always embedded in a historical moment which conceals as much as it reveals” (Felix Dakat) was already taken into account in Heidegger’s “Sein und Zeit” (“Being and Time”).

Heidegger’s existentials (the ways of existing) are, for example: Sorge, esp. Angst, In-der-Welt-Sein (“being-in-the-world”), Gestimmtheit (“mood”, “attunement”), Geworfenheit (“thrownness”), Verstehen (“understanding”) and others.

I recommend Heidegger’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” as a supplement (the “second half” - as mentioned above) to “Being and Time”.

By the way:

Everything is governed by history. Everything is historical. Everything is subjected to historicity.

It is not possible to explain with a physical method what e.g. physics “is”. It is not possible. But it is possible to understand it. But the understanding starts from completely different presuppositions. You can know what physics “is” when you speak and think about it, but not when you start an experiment or trial to show what physics “is”. All knowledge, and therefore all science too, is subjected to historicity.

Heidegger knew this, of course. His disciple Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote a book with the title “Wahrheit und Methode” (“Truth and Method”), in which he also points to the problem, which of course was also known to Heidegger.

Heidegger on Heidegger:

facebook.com/watch/?v=899964107459515

A good film. Thank you.

Heidegger is right:

The question of being and the unfolding of the question of being presuppose precisely an interpretation of dasein.

According to Heidegger, behind the essence of technology hides the relation between being and man. And this relation could one day come to light in its unconcealedness.

Heidegger has never been against technology, but wants to understand the essence of technology. He interprets technology, namely the essence of technology, as a power that challenges man and towards which he is no longer free.

Heidegger knows that in the foreseeable future man (in his organic being) will be made accordimg to need.

Heidegger’s new thinking, which he says is more difficult in execution than philosophy, demands a new care of language (!). He used the word “Sorgfalt” translated as “care”. Also the word “Sorgfalt” contains the word “Sorge” ( ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 2#p2812777 ).

The misunderstandings voiced by the interviewer are a testimony to the difficulty in understanding Heidegger including his interpretation of Dasein. I find it interesting that he alludes to his turn from inventing new terms to retreating “into the primordial content of our own continuously dying grasp of language.”

In Being and Time where Heidegger’s inventing of new terms is in full bloom, there is, nonetheless, a refreshing illustration of Dasein as Care in a myth:

„Unterwegs zur Sprache“. Und das ist das ganze Geheimnis Heideggers.“ - Jean Beaufret, Heidegger-Übersetzer.
“On the way to language. And that is the whole secret of Heidegger.” - Jean Beaufret, Heidegger translator.