So you're saying that his perspective is radically unsocial.
I didn't say that I don't understand him at all. Let's say that I don't
think one can abstract being from the matrix in which beings exist--that
being is only in dialogue--as language is only in dialogue, whether the
speakers are internal or external. That it's a matter of negotiation. And
that how one conceives of being has implications for how one acts in the
world.
Mark
At 05:32 AM 10/18/2001 +0100, Erminia Passannanti wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:58:11 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>Martin: I've read Heidegger on several occasions with various degrees of
>>incomprehension.
>
>
>I am not surprised, Heidegger is generally a philosopher speaking and
>writing for other philosophers who like that kind of extreme
>sophistications(the French got very enthusiastic about Heidegger).
>
>
>>Your little explanation is very helpful.
>
>.......but it can't be. Heidegger 's philosophy is too complex for anyone
>to find relief in our reductions.
>
>In Sein und Zeit, Heiddeger idea of the "self" as "being" (the being in
>process) dealt mainly with the dialectical relationship between language
>and the mind .
>Language has an intuition of the being, and attributes to this being a
>word, the self.
>The self as we understand it comes to us through language. But its meaning
>is not merely a linguistic effect. It is just the preliminary understanding
>of what the self is - which happens in an extra-linguistic sphere - to
>make language possible.
>In Metaphysics, Heidegger states (sorry about the rough translation):
>
> "Let's suppose that this indeterminate meaning of the being is not given,
>and that we do not understand not even what it means. Which thing there
>would be then? Only one word less in our language? No. There would not be
>then - generally speaking - no language at all. "
>To maintain the sense of the being, at least in part, outside of linguistic
>games was perhaps for Heidegger one necessary condition to safeguard the
>essence of language itself.
>So, to analyze the meaning of the self(in German Sinn), one must understand
>the meaning of the word representing the being to the mind. To be able to
>ask oneself: What is the "being"?
>For Heidegger, as for every philosophy, the sense of this "being" is so
>central as to be the primary task of all our speculations: if we do not
>clarify what we mean with the word "being" than we cannot speak about a
>self at all.
>
>
>>question: it seems to me that our sense of individual selfhood is
>>conditioned by our sense of self-within-society.
>
>For Heidegger the problem concerning the being is not merely a linguistic
>problem but in fact is something that gradually identifies itself with
>linguistic issues. Being is an ontological primumn cognitum, it is
>phenomenologically given and it is not created by language, it pre-exist
>language. What is phenomenologically given can only be understood starting
>from the being itself and therefore pre-exist to any linguistic
>formulation. And yet, we are caught into the necessity to express it
>linguistically.
>
>
>
>
> >Even those of us who
>>believe that individual selfhood ends with the last breath often behave as
>>if we assume that self-within-society continues (sorry for the shabby
>>terms), otherwise we wouldn't work so hard to influence events that will
>>only unfold after us, often at the risk of death. Does Heidegger ever
>>address this, or is he wedded to a sense of self in isolation? And if so
>>how does he deal with apparent altruism?
>
>The being escapes any speech and signification because it is that very
>beginning from which every speech and signification is made possible.
>Derrida Writes: Consider it as essence or existence [...], the being
>of "the being" does not belong to the field of speech, because it is
>already implied in every speech in a generalized manner and it renders
>speech possible. "
>
>In this light, the sense of the word "being" is not an effect of the
>linguistic articulation of the word representing it since it is the base
>itself on which the entire articulation of that very representative word is
>based and is structured. The true sense of the being cannot be explained by
>or through language. Therefore the sense of the being, the self, can only
>being explained outside language.
>
>The sense of the being, our "self" transcend language, but can only be
>communicated by language: so one must understand how to live within
>language to understand how indefinable the self is.
>In other words, because the self is unique, it cannot be really defined
>since definitions imply comparisons and the self in being unique cannot be
>satisfied by any definition. So, its meaning is identical to its being. It
>does not refer to anything else. Its real sense is not given by the
>language game, although we can only represent it to our mind with a word.
>You see how complicate and radically abstract this is?
>
>We can doubt of whichever ent, but we cannot doubt of that it means " to
>be " in contrast to what it is " not to be " in the Hegelian sense :so we
>can understand what to be is starting from our understanding of what not to
>be will be.
>
>The issue is of the great importance, because it is this determination of
>the being that decides the essence of language. Either the being is
>absolutely indeterminate, to the point that its sense is the nothingness,
>as in Hegel 's theory, and therefore language, than stands on the sense of
>this word, the being, does not mean anything, and does not represent
>anything; or the being has a sense that is in toto opposed to "
>nothingness", and consequently language has a sense, in other word,
>language therefore can refer to something that is to outside of language
>itself. It is not therefore society or language that justify the self, as
>the being, but some pre-existing condition outside language and society
>themselves, in other word an ontological primum. Because it is very
>determinate, there is no possibility there for perspectives, points of
>view , interpretations of what the being is. The being cannot be
>interepreted, since it escapes the linguitic game of cross references.
>The self, the being is not an object that stands in front of us and offers
>itself to our interpretations.
>In a way, it is just the excess of evidence of the being - its mater of
>fact - that renders us blind to it. It is too determinate...
>Erminia
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>At 07:04 PM 10/17/2001 +0200, Martin J. Walker wrote:
>>>These are very knotty questions which are not as simple as saying "the
>self
>>>is an illusion, amen." For Heidegger, as I understand it, Being (das Sein)
>>>is indefinable by being-there (Dasein), which all persons have in common:
>>>their selves are constituted by that community & their language (based on
>>>understanding,Verstehen, plus Rede, speech), both of which also imply the
>>>project (Entwurf) & the care (Sorge), the latter comprehending the past &
>>>present as the condition & the future as the field of self-realization
>which
>>>must end in death, thus my dread (Angst) until I affirm death as my most
>>>real possibility, thus devaluing in a sense all the projects etc of
>>>Being-there & attaining authentic existence, though Being is always far-
>off.
>>>The transcendent Self of the Upanishads is actually closer to Being than
>>>Being-there, thus only a logical step forward (and a lot of meditation)
>was
>>>necessary for Gautama to realize _sambodhi_ as the illumination that
>>>transcends the object-subject of normal consciousness: this results in
>>>_nirvana_, in which the distinctions of the normal self have vanished.
>>>Thus in both philosophies the normal self is something to be transcended
>as
>>>not finally constitutive of Being, but it is hardly a simple illusion.
>>>Heidegger would presumably frown on any belief in survival after death as
>>>inauthentic.
>>>I can't understand why you find the implications of non-self <a bit
>scary>,
>>>as death (nothingness) will relieve you of your self in any case, a much
>>>scarier consideration I would have thought; I myself shall be quite happy
>to
>>>wander around the Bardo or various reincarnations before being relieved of
>>>self, if death is not the end. Amen.
>>>Martin
>>>
>
|