Heidegger and Being-Towards-Death

>>9473725
existential death is the end of all possibilities for Dasein
this can either be within a particular "world" that Dasein itself survives the end of (albeit it will lose one of its identities and a mode of intelligibility with that world)
or it can be the total collapse of all possibility for Dasein, which is coincident with actual perishing but only in the case of Dasein
in the latter case the total world and not just a particular world collapses (for that particular Dasein, though)
you are fleeing so far from perishing as death that you are taking the local conception of existential death as the entirety of existential death, but there must be a global conception of existential death as well

>>9473779

>existential death is the end of all possibilities for Dasein

This makes sense. It's just that I don't understand the point of the framing at the beginning of the relevant chapter on Death, which is focused on understanding what it means to have a relation to "the end" even though that end cannot be experienced. I feel that something is lacking from my understanding of making distinctions from the ontical and the ontological, or that maybe I've missed the point of the first 5-10 pages introducing the chapter of death, or maybe that's a genuine fault in the exposition of death.

Like I said before, it feels like a bait-and-switch since the entire chapter was prefaced by a need to explore the "whole" of Dasein. Exploring ontological death as the end of all possibilities (collapse of a particular world) is a very meaningful phenomena that I think Dasein should have an authentic relations toward... the relation that Heidegger defines as Being-Towards-Death.

But by redefining "the end" of Dasein from a non-Dasein-incorporated event (like demise) to a very much incorporated experience (end of possibilities but a continuation of Dasein) in order to define the relation towards death, it seems that Heidegger sidestepped that problem that framed the problem of understanding "the end" in the first place. In its time span, Dasein experiences multiple collapses (thus experiencing this new "end" often), so this new Being-Towards-Death isn't a relation to the end of the "whole" of Dasein, but rather just a chapter of its existential identity.

The bait-and-switch sucks the existential gravity out of having a relationship towards death, which is a theme that I think Heidegger wanted to capitalize by playing with the colloquial conception of it as simply "the end". "You perish/demise, and you're gone, but what are you going to do about it? Are you going to "own" up to your own death? You can't experience death by simply observing the death of others because you're only "Being-With" others in their death from Dasein to a Being present-at-hand."

...

...

...

Of course, now that death is no longer what we normally understand as demise, but another abstraction that further defines how we act authentically towards possibilities in the world, a lot of the gravity in the beginning of the chapter is sucked away (and replaced with something else). What the hell is the point of talking about others dying? What the hell is the "cult of the graves"? What's going on here, exactly? BAIT AND SWITCH! Or maybe there's something else going on.

>>9473779

>you are fleeing so far from perishing as death that you are taking the local conception of existential death as the entirety of existential death, but there must be a global conception of existential death as well

So does the ontological death associated with Dasein's demise carry any special weight for Heidegger? Or is it just an "unfortunate ontical fact" of demise and not necessarily the most important feature of understanding Dasein's Being-Towards-Death? Is trying to understand any special meaning from a relationship to demise a form of fleeing itself?

-- -- -- -- --

Thank you for the clear exposition of your understanding of perishing, demise, and death. It's helped to clarify my ideas and I'm probably just typing out the bulk of my essay right now. I was "anxious" to pieces until I had a nice, solid interpretation to confirm that I was heading somewhere intelligible.

Being-Towards-Bump.

>>9473779

>it can be the total collapse of all possibility for Dasein, which is coincident with actual perishing but only in the case of Dasein

This sentence seems unclear. Do you mean that Dasein's perishing is coincident to the "collapse of possibility" for only Dasein?

One last bump.

>>9475865

I don't think you'll find help here.

>>9473901
I think the end means for Heidegger a hypothetical state of being, since dead doesn't really exist, because the world isn't really a totality. Being means a human interacting with the world, but he can't really think it's "existence" from anywhere else, than from the notion of dead (since not being is impossible), but dead can't be understood on its own, it's only our fear of it, which makes it possible for us to understand it.

>>9473725
Did you ask the same thing on reddit you dumb fag?

This is what happens when you forget to start with the Greeks.

>>9473901
I have trouble to understand what you don't understand exactly. You mention relation to the end though that end cannot be experienced, is this problematic to you? (The thought of a relation to something without having any "grasp" of the thing)
I think the experience of angst is "missed" if you want to make it a "mini-end" deal (it's not experiencing a new "end" often, it's rather returning to your very essence which you manage to hide away most of times. This dasein isn't death itself, its modality is this being-toward-death). You don't die anytime you feel angst, though you indeed feel what it means to be a being-toward-death.
Regarding the death of the other, it's the same deal : you don't get accustomed to your death by watching people dying, it changes nothing to your own death or your own relation with it.