Heidegger

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com wrote
>[Jud]: *Quote: The Dasein mechanism is a grammatical and semantic trick >to allow EXISTENCE or BEING to become a predicate. The clavis >universalis to an understanding of existence is an understanding of the >*attributive of modality* word *BE* in its many conjugational guises. >(Was, were, is, am, are, being, etc.) Heidegger attempts to drive in a >wedge and distinguish a dichotomy or dualism between the named ‘ontic’ >entity, (which he characterises wrongly as: “anything that is”) and the >sum of its existential modalities that is referenced by its name.*
>*Joe: 1. have you considered the possibility that the non-noun uses of >’being’ (gerund, continuous present) are given inappropriate emphasis >because of translation conventions that may be misleading. >specifically, I am referring to the decision by McQuarrie and Robinson >to translate ‘Siendes’ as ‘entity’ or ‘entities’ rather than as ‘being’ >or ‘beings’. these are all nouns. my point is that if the noun uses are >obscured by the translators, only the verb-based uses appear.*
>*Jud:*
>*They were correct to do so. From Heidegger’s perspective there is >little difference between a being and an entity. *
precisely. it would have helped, I think, if the translators had just used the literal meanings instead of mentioning in a footnote that ‘das Sciende’ = ‘that which is’ and ‘ein Sciendes’ = ’something which is’. instead, by using ‘entity’ they have to note that ‘entity’ is being used to mean ’something which is’ — a definition they note may not match contemporary Anglo-American philosophical usage.
>*Joe: >2. as a noun it is appropriately combined with a locative. the problem >is that Heidegger (and/or translators) chose the wrong one. if you >recall that Heidegger claimed that Dasein should always refer to itself >in the first person (’I am’), it should be clear that the correct >locative is ‘here’ not ‘there’.*
>*Jud:*
>*I am unclear what you mean here. The import of *Being* and the meaning >it gives to the term - *being there* is *living there.*
>*In English both phrases are exchangable. *
>*(1) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, being there proved too expensive >for him.*
>*(2) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, living there proved too expensive >for him.*
‘here’ and ‘there’ are both locatives; but, to translate dasein as ‘being there’ contradicts Heidegger’s claim that dasein should refer to itself in the first person. from the first-person perspective, ‘here’ is the correct locative to use. I would say ‘I am this being here’ not ‘that being there’. similarly, I would say ‘I am living here’ while ‘you are living over there’.
>*I do not (and I do not say in my text) that Heidegger was hoping to >solidify ‘being’ or ‘being there’ into a noun. I quite clearly state >that the Dasen con-trick is an attempt to instantiate the abstract noun >’being’ ( within a gerundial wrap) in such a way that it becomes >acceptable as a predicate.*
you quote yourself asking
>*Why on earth did he reject all these pronouns and insist on naming his >protagonist not with a form of noun or pronoun but a gerundial >construction ‘Das-sein’ (being there) which is the continuous present >form of the word which was his nemesis – ‘BE – IS – Being? What >grammatical skullduggery is afoot?
but you didn’t quote your own answer
>The answer is simple, Heidegger gambolled [correctly] that after a >while the real underlying meaning of the 3rd-person continuous present >fragment – ‘being there’ or ‘being in the world’ as he later lengthened >it to, would be forgotten by the readers of ‘Being and Time, ‘ and it >would be accepted into his philosophical lexicon as a fully fledged >noun, which is the way he boldly treats it in his writings.
that sounds like you’re saying that Heidegger was hoping that his vocabulary would become acceptable thru continued use — which is what I meant by ’solidify’.
Joe
— Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@  http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback