Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Heidegger_1955.jpg (40KB, 484x578px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 484x578px
>As we have seen, it is an essential characteristic of Dasein that, in its ordinary ways of engaging with other entities, it operates with a preontological understanding of Being, that is, with a distorted or buried grasp of the a priori conditions that, by underpinning the taking-as structure, make possible particular modes of Being. This suggests that a disciplined investigation of those everyday modes of engagement on the part of Dasein (what Heidegger calls an “existential analytic of Dasein”) will be a first step towards revealing a shared but hidden underlying meaning of Being. Heidegger puts it like this: whenever an ontology takes for its theme entities whose character of Being is other than that of Dasein, it has its own foundation and motivation in Dasein's own ontical structure, in which a pre-ontological understanding of Being is comprised as a definite characteristic… Therefore fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein. (Being and Time 3: 33–4)
Was he just copypastaing schopenhauer?
>>
It just seems like a way of describing phenomenology to me.
>>
how HIGH do you even need to be to write something like that
>>
>Heidegger
>Not based Lacan in stead
>>
>>9600777
but the access to the transcendental through the phenomenology of our own being (dasein) sounds straight out of schopenhauer, no? i mean schop didnt really have the phenomonelogical tools husserl did, but it's kind of what he said could/should be done
>>
>>9600796
I have to admit that I don't know Schopenhauer well enough; is he worth reading? Is reading Nietzsche instead the right choice? Also I didn't pick up on Dasein having transcended itself in the OP, maybe I'm missing it?
>>
>>9600816
if youre only going to read one, read nietzsche. dasein isnt transcending itself. it is understanding being through the phenomenological experience of itself as dasein. schopenhauer agrees with kant's metaphysics, but sort of says that actually we can approach the transcendental 'things in themselves' because we have access to them through our own bodies.
>>
>>9600774
How close is this to Lacanian psychoanalysis?
>>
>>9600825
How are there things in themselves ?
>>
>>
>>9600872
I mean asssuming there are limits aren't there only waves/particles ?
>>
>>9600949
limits to what?
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1