just started pic related, what am in for? is this a decent edition?

throw obscurantist metaphysics authors in to the trahs where they were and belong.

>>9251351
it's not obscure if you've done your homework, anon :^)

>>9251338
Being is covered be the 'coming-forward'(sorry I have never read an English translation of Heidegger)/appearance of beings/phenomena. Basically whenever a being appears in its presence, its Being has stepped back and let itself cover up to let beings be in the clearing/Lichtung that it thus has created. So Being is present in every appearance only through its absence, through which it creates room for beings/phenomena to present themselves. It goes back to Heideggers interpretation of the greek aletheia concept and his concept of Er-reignis. So yes, in this way it is through universal Being that we can grasp phenomena, but as you say it always has to do with Dasein, as we have to embark on the project of the question of Being with our basis in the being asking the question. Thus why temporality becomes important later on.

Sorry if this makes no sense, English is not my first language and Heidegger is hard enough to explain/grasp without a language barrier, lol. (Language in general for Heidegger, is a barrier... Maybe an opening at the same time haha)

>>9251604
Of course this all goes back to the ontological differenz between ontic-ontological, which I guess you understand.

>>9251604
i think i understand what you are saying.

i understand the notion behind the ontic-ontological distinction, at least i think so. is it basically that (based on what you have said so far) the dasein Being-ontological is the condition where Being has not yet stepped back (and presumably shrouds entities), while Being-ontic is the dasein where the entities appear and Being is then obscured?

to use an example, the structure of Being-Continental would first be Being-ontological, where the Being of Continental thinking appears, and then shrouds itself to progress into Being-ontic, where the entities contained in Being-Continental are revealed?

if this reading is close to correct, then am i right in picking up on a similarity between this and Hegel's notion of force and expression, or force and understanding?

>>9251897
To bring it down to earth a bit:
The ontological difference is the difference between the fact that a thing/phenomena IS (the ontological level) and the thing that is (ontic level).
So the beings and their Being.
Your example with Continental thinking is in theory correct, but its problematic to think of ontological as 'before' ontic - this is a move akin to what H would call onto-theology. He makes it very clear that Being only is the Being OF beings, thus never separated from then. The problem of the tradition of metaphysics is that it thinks Being in the way you are vaguely making out - thus turning the ontological into the ontic.

In regards to Dasein:
Dasein is never before the obscuration of Being - Dasein is always in a relation to other beings through its engagement, whereby Being itself is obscured. There is never a 'before', Dasein is always in a meaningful mediated relation to other beings. We can only begin to 'grasp' Being through its absence in anxiety. But you will get to that.:)

>>9251897
With regards to Hegel, I am not familiar enough with his writing to say so.

>>9251962
awesome, thanks for your input. if i manage to get through the book unscathed i will try to post another thread where hopefully some more discussion can take place.

>>9251968
if it's not the case that the ontological comes before the ontic, then the two notions are not quite the same thing

>>9251989
Cool, will look out for it.
One thing to add:
One of the things to take from the notion of Dasein is really that its a radical way to solve the problem of the subject-object dichotomy and a radical critique of Kant's project. Dasein IS itself the relation whereby it is engaged with the world - there are thus never really sharp dichotomies between subject and object.
If Kant asks for the transcendental preconditions for experiencing/gaining knowledge, Heidegger will say that Dasein is in a way is the transcendental precondition of itself and that the question is thus misguided.