AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place
February 8th, 2009, search relatedRelated posts :: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place :: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place :: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place :: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place
> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Polanik
> Sent: maandag 2 februari 2009 13:15
> To: heidegger at an-archos.com
> Cc: epistemology at yahoogroups.com; nominalism at yahoogroups.com;
> analytical-indicant-theory at yahoogroup…
> Subject: Axis of Error: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place
A nice analysis of how AIT-ism is an acerb form of Heideggerianism.
(Heidegger was not an opponent of materialism or mattergism, but he was
indifferent to them).
However, there is a difference between “I am” and “it is”. “It is” means
that a thing/being is not nothing. But, a thing cannot say “I am”. “I am” is
a statement which only an aware being is able to utter, since only aware
beings are aware of their own being something else than nothing. As such, “I
am” does not only denote that one is something else than nothing, but it
also denotes that one is an aware being. Heidegger calls aware beings by the
word Dasein. He defines the being of the Dasein in residing alongside with
and being familiar with, i.e. he states the property of awareness, that of
taking part to its own environment, of imparting in its environment.
As such, “I am” is a shortcut notation for “I am an aware being”=”I am a
Dasein”=”I am not a thing”. An aware being who is in a room is in that room
in a different manner from a chair which is also in that room, since the
chair does not have an awareness and as such it cannot take part to its own
environment, other than by exerting electromagnetical forces which keep it
from falling through the floor. The chair reacts to its environment, but it
is not aware of it. Like a crow who knows not to fly against the winter
wind, but it does not know that it knows that.
So, you are right that “I am” means (in its literal meaning) “I am not
nothing”, but it has to be considered a shortcut notation for “I am not a
thing”, since things are, but they cannot say “I am”.
Greetings,
Tudor
