Talk:Dasein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

Do we really need every instance of Dasein to be bolded in this article? --Anakolouthon 03:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed that. But what does this article actually mean? -- Karada 00:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does this meaning of ontic come from? Also shouldn't it be ontical?

Frogus - This article is incomprehensible to me. Distinctions need to be made between Heidegger's terms and commonly accepted terms, and some sections made - maybe one on the root of the word, one on Heidegger's exposition of it and one on its use in his book? Muchos gracias to anyone who knows this subject. Since when has 'ontological' meant 'doing'? Also, the author means 'ontical' by 'ontic' as far as I can tell. Either one is an extremely inaccessible word to use...

I have a problem with a couple sentences here. The first is, "Dasein is just the way we are." Dasein does not simply designate a mode of being or describe the behavior of a being, but rather names a certain kind of being in its entirety. Also, Heidegger explicitly states that Dasein is not synonymous with "human being," since humans are merely one particular instance of a kind of being that may manifest in any number of possible particularities.

The second sentence is, "Dasein is a way to get at an ontological understanding of time." It is more accurate to say that Dasein, as a being that is constituted by its temporality, draws upon time in order to illuminate and interpret the meaning of being. -- *wert-

[edit] not a sentence.

The third sentence is not a sentence grammatically.

[edit] What's the problem with "ontic?"

The use of "ontic" is entirely correct. Commonly, "ontic" is simply an adjective synonymous with "ontological"- there is nothing grammatically fishy about it. Its use here is more important than mere grammar however, since Heidegger draws a distinction between the "ontic," which designates beings in their everyday thisness and thatness, and the "ontological," which designates any relation to being as such and in a universal sense. The distinction between "ontic" and "ontological" mirrors his distinction between "being" and "the being of beings." -- *wert-

I find it a little troubling that this article links ontological with "does" and ontic with "is". First of all, a strict identification of either ontological or ontic with does or is seems to miss the point (Dasein acts, I act; Dasein is, I am). More than that, the identification seems counterintuitive -- everything I do is ontological, except in so far as I "am" Dasein. It would have been easier just to delete the words, but I am curious about the rationale for that identification... Ig0774

The Jean Macquarrie & Edward Robinson translation of Being and Time uses "ontical," not ontic. They are semantically synonymous, but it would be more appropriate, given the preference for the former in the text, to use "ontical."

The Stambaugh translation tends to favor "ontic". I think this is a matter of indifference. Ig0774

[edit] mistakes

Dasein is not synonymous with existence. It is specifically "an entity for which, in its Being, that Being is an issue." It is, of course, not an entity in any sense of presence-to-hand. It is also "...an entity which in each case I myself am." This connotes two important aspects of Dasein. First, the simple fact that you and I are Dasein. Second, that what it "is" is wrapped up in its Being (I myself 'am'), Being here correctly interpreted as emphatically a verb, reasonably synonymous with 'existing.' In other words Dasein only 'is' in terms of its Being (existing), which is always some particular mode of Being. That is, Dasein doesn't just exist, it always exists in such and such a way. It is arguable whether Dasein can be understood as a 'thing' at all, given its distinction as immanently unique from all other entities (excepting other Dasein), and in its utter inseperability from Being. Heidegger does not use the term 'primal,' he uses the term primordial. They are significantly different. Dasein in its 'everydayness,' the effect of its being 'thrown' into the world, is, in fact, inauthentic. It is 'fallen' Dasein. eotvos

The last two points are very good points (especially the everydayness part...). On the other hand, Dasein is synonymous with existence insofar as the sentence which claims this it is directed towards the meaning of the German word Dasein and not the Heidegger's particular meaning. The qualification applies to both terms. I find it fairly hard to understand how Dasein can be a meaningful concept without understanding the play that is going on here (like that between "ek-sistence" and "existence" in "A Letter on Humanism"). To understand Dasein as a thing (does the article ever claim this?) is to commit the same kind of mistake you point out. Ig0774

If anything could be synonymous with existence it would be Being (but of course it isn't, Heidegger is very careful to differentiate his idea of Being from others). Dasein (Being There)... It's important to understand the 'Being' in 'Being There' as a verb. 'Existing There.' Later in Being and Time Heidegger expands the Being (existing) of Dasein to include Being-in, Being-alongside, Being-with. Notice the location adverbs. Dasein can't 'be-in' or be-alongside existence and be existence at the same time, can it? Another definition Heidegger gives of Dasein is Being-In-The-World. Another one is 'care,' stating that this relationship is pre-ontilogical and in many ways constitutes Dasein itself. Given the manifold ways in which Dasein is explicitly linked with a singular existing entity (particularly when he says that Dasein is "...an entity which in each case I myself am), I think it's fairly clear that within his framework, Dasein is not synonymous with existence (understanding 'existence' as an entity or sum of entities). In fact, Heidegger would have qualms with the term 'existence', as commonly understood, as he formulates an idea of 'world' to stand in place of an idea of existence, where the 'world' is the region wherein Dasein encounters entities present-to-hand and interacts with objects ready-to-hand (there very ready-to-handedness being a quality informed by Dasein's interest). eotvos

The general thrust of your argument, that Heidegger's conception of Dasein is not synonymous with existence is correct. All I meant to say is that the article, when it claims that Dasein is synonymous with existence is not talking about Heidegger's concetption, it is talked about Dasein as a German word (it is a German word, not a Heideggerian neologism, albeit a technical term). Heidegger is quite clear (particularly in the Letter Concerning Humanism) that Dasein is in no way equivalent to existence, because, primordially, Dasein ek-sists before it exists. Ig0774

Ah, my mistake. Letter on Humanism...well, for the class I'm in we began with a survey of Husserl's phenomenology, then worked from Heidegger's later works (What is philosophy, Discourse on Thinking, What is metaphysics, Letter on Humanism, Essence of Truth, among others) back to Being and Time. The teacher's intent was to familiarize the class with the main thrust of Heidegger's thought before dealing with Being and Time, the implication being that Being and Time would be the most difficult. But on the contrary I've found Being and Time to be considerably more lucid than his later essays.... Anyways, I guess I should create a wikipedia account or something... eotvos

Regarding your point about the intention of the article, I feel like the author slips between explicating Dasein as a German word and a Heideggarian concept without drawing a distinction (Dasein is synonymous with existence, as in I am pleased with my existence (ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden), but it mustn't be mistaken for a subject) The first clause is fine with the German word, but the second refers to the word as Heidegger's term. At least that is how it seems to me. eotvos

You're absolutely right about that slip. These things happen on Wikipedia, especially since numerous people write various parts of the article. Being and Time is indeed lucid, but at the same time bears reading and rereading. Heidegger's essays, particularly the ones you mention, are much better for developing a single theme (personally, I read Being and Time before the rest of them and find myself continuing rediscovering how it links up with his other essays). I will endeavor to correct the sentence in question, however. Ig0774