Essays discussion

Heidegger > Dasein

Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lia (new)

Lia | 522 comments Mod
source: Rethinking Difference, Daniel Dahlstrom
“Dasein” denotes the sort of being that understands being and, indeed, such that being matters to it. He argues that Dasein, by virtue of this disposed understanding (befindliches Verstehen), enjoys a certain prerogative over other entities. This disposed understanding of being is what enables Dasein to care about entities, including itself, and relate, theoretically and practically, to them.

Bryan--The Bee’s Knees (theindefatigablebertmcguinn) | 50 comments Do you think that 'Dasein' really just refers to that rather ineffable (though Heidegger certainly tries to 'eff' it) substance that makes us human? Not a human animal but a human being? What do you think is the difference between 'Dasein' and a secular meaning of the world soul?

message 3: by Lia (last edited Jul 25, 2018 12:16AM) (new)

Lia | 522 comments Mod
I really don't think Heidegger was working on anything ineffable. I *think* he's picking fights with plebs who used to assume "the question of being" is so vague, so general, so (insert excuse), it's impossible to define, or debate, or pin down, or understand. What is is simply what IS there, there's nothing else to it! (TS Eliot said something like that in the most contemptuous tone imaginable, gesturing to his desk with things spread all over it, mocking the whole philosophical enterprise!)

So it's hard to pin down NOT because it's otherworldly or anything beyond human capacity or imagination (unlike Plato's ideas/ form, for example.) In fact everybody who worked with it seems to assume some degree of a priori knowledge, we already know what "is" is, we just find it hard to examine.

Also, Heidegger insists it's not specifically about human, human is just a convenient ... "specimen"? to examine, because we are the kind of being that have that "self-understanding in time." But apparently he waffled about that at some point in one of his lectures, he made a comment about possibilities of animals with memory and sense of temporality as well.

Anyway, we now get dangerously close to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" type, self-introspection as uniquely human virtue essentialism, but Heidegger fights Descartes over that too. He's not interested in some self-isolating ivory tower dude excluding everyday experience to just meditate, he's talking about normal, quotidian, everyday experiences in time. I haven't read ANY Descartes at all, so I might have misread that. But it seems Heidegger wants to work on a general sense of what it means for a being to say / think about "I am," not as a verb, but as some kind of complex awareness intertwined with a whole lot of things, like other self-aware beings, society, tools, past, future, etc etc.

I don't know what a "secular meaning of the world soul is," I'm vaguely aware that Heidegger picks fight with Hegel as well (and the historical consciousness/ world soul thing seems vaguely Hegelian, at least to me.

Off topic, but curious anecdote: Apparently reading Hegel made Dostoevsky cry, presumably because Hegel made those Siberian outcasts out to be soulless or something, because they are so periphery they don't matter. I can't decide if Hegel is especially mean, or if Dostoevsky is especially histrionic...

Thanks for making me ramble!

back to top