[Back Sept. 1]
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
More good stuff at enowning. This time, however, I find myself feeling superior to Heidegger (a useful if limited emotion). Surely we must say more than
the things themselves = the world = the clearing = the open = the here
Surely the relevant required acts of phenomenological description will be different?
Characterizing the here is importantly related to characterizing the world. But they are no one and the same operation.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Enowning is providing a real service to people, like me, who are interested in Heidegger, but find the scholarship daunting in that area. This latest post (and its sources) really puts things in perspective for me.
Heidegger apparently did not like the interpretation of "Da" as "here" or "there" (Da is neither here nor there), but preferred to call it "the open". In a sense, of course, the "here" is always out in the open. But "Dasein" means "existence" in ordinary German and the OED tells us that "existere" in Latin is "ex" (out) + "stare" (stand). I.e., Dasein is our standing out (in the open). Dasein, then, is the "where we are standing" and this "here" is determined by the clearing (Lichtung).
Dasein may then be interpreted as a stance (which brings us into the realm of Merleau-Ponty's) studies of "comportment", and Bourdieu's studies of "habitus". Heidegger demands that we take an "open" stance, then. I.e., that our "standing" be "out there" (ecstatic?), i.e., that we better well exist.