Nicole Czerwinski
The "meaning of being", the "phenomenon of our everyday human existence". Okay, but must that be encompassed in a "dense work of 'linguistic obfuscation'"?“Being and Time,” published in 1927 by German philosopher Martin Heidegger, is considered one of the most important existential texts. Sifting through this dense work of immense “linguistic obfuscation”, Heidegger urges us to get perplexed. He takes us on an existential journey of questioning a taken-for-granted concept: the meaning of being, the phenomenon of our everyday human existence.
That's precisely why I ask those convinced that they understand his "technical" jargon to bring his conclusions down out of the intellectual contraption clouds and describe the implications of it given "everyday human existence".
And, in particular, Dasein embedded in existential interactions in which conflicts occur over the contexts that are ever popping up "in the news". Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl anyone?
Being there. Where you are? Being here. Where I am? Your there and my here embedded in uniquely personal social, political and economic variables that may well be entirely different. What of Dasein then? How do we go about pinning down a "wise" description of it that takes into account these particular worlds construed in particular [and often very different] ways?Heidegger chooses to use the term “Dasein” for the human being ‘Da’ means there and “sein” means being in German - being there.
A discussion of Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl among the politically liberal and the politically conservative philosophers?
Nope, let's stick to the "general description philosophical contraptions":
How about this...As Yalom writes, by renaming the human being as Dasein, Heidegger wishes to underline the dual nature of human existence. On one hand, the person is there as a constituted object, and at the same time the person is responsible for constituting themselves and their world. Heidegger’s ontological framework of ways of being-in-the-world goes beyond the idea of us as subjects, separated from a world of objects. Instead, he insists that we are not isolated from the world, but inextricably connected to our surroundings (“Umwelt”); through our being-in-the-world we are part of the larger fabric of existence.
Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein given this distinction:
"The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being...can or does do."
New thread, anyone?