Dasein= A Human Am i wrong?

>>8842378
Yes.

Being there, here, out.
For H, the being (yourself) is something open, as opposed to the modern conception (muh alienation, muh self consciousness)
We depend on the being

lad lsd lool

the key to audience pussy is vaguely defining your key terms and never giving a straight answer and contradicting the meaning
it's like playing hard to get, people wanna understand but you never give it so they keep comin back for more

>>8842378
Your keyboard is also dasein. Heidegger was trying to get away from the philosophy of the subject

>>8842513
Did he succeed though? Because it seems to me that phenomenology is still limited to subjective experience, even if it tries to understand it abstractly. It's not the Cartesian "I", but it is not that far from it.

Dasein is any being that is aware of its own existence and has to grapple with adapting (ie Being) in the world.

Humans are the only Dasein we know of, but not all humans are Dasein (if one is retarded enough to be essentially catatonic, they do not have Dasein.) If we found out sentient aliens exist, or built a computer program that is self-aware, these beings would have Dasein too. Heidegger just never explicitly equates Dasein with humans because Dasein is a feature of humanity but not something he wants to limit to humanity.

>>8842644

wew lad

>>8842644
He was moving away from subjective experience. He just wanted philosophy to realize that the subject is more composite than only the introspective aspect. See>>8842412
The difference between he and Descartes is that H wants philosophers to realize that one's self or Being is a historical process rather than that of Descartes where there is a fundamental essence which is then shaped.