Search
Who is Online
17 user(s) are online (17 user(s) are browsing Léxico Filosofia)

Members: 0
Guests: 17

more...
Novos Termos
Termos Populares
Home Léxico Filosofia  Léxico Filosofia B  B being-with being-with
Léxico Filosofia

 Browse by letter 
 | 0  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 4  | 5  | 6  | 7  | 8  | 9  |  A  |  B  |  C  |  D  |  E  |  F  |  G  |  H  |  I  |  J  |  K  |  L  |  M  |  N  |  O  |  P  |  Q  |  R  |  S  |  T  |  U  |  V  |  W  |  X  |  Y  |  Z  |

being-with

Definition:
Being-with (Mitsein), 41, 113-130 (I.V, esp. §§26, 27), 131, 142, 146, 161-164, 181, 193, 237-238, 250, 263-265, 270-272, 280-283, 288, 298, 384, 386, 406, 410 [BTMR]


What is now meant by this indeterminacy of the ‘who’ and the non-prominent status of the others in the environing world for the being of Dasein? Nothing but this: As being-in-the-world, Dasein is at the same time being with one another—more rigorously, ‘BEING-WITH.’ The phenomenological statement, ‘Dasein as being-in-the-world is a BEING-WITH with others,’ has an existential-ontological sense and does not intend to establish that in fact do not turn out to be alone and that still other entities of my kind are on hand. If this were the intention of the stipulation, then I would be speaking of my Dasein as if it were an environmental thing on hand. And being would not be a determination which would belong to Dasein of itself by way of its kind of being. BEING-WITH would rather be something which Dasein would have at the time just because others happen to be on hand. Dasein would be BEING-WITH only because others do in fact turn up. GA20EN §26

BEING-WITH signifies a character of being of Dasein as such which is co-original with being-in-the-world. And it is the formal condition of possibility of the co-disclosure of the Dasein of others for the Dasein which is in each instance one’s own. This character of BEING-WITH defines the Dasein even when another Dasein is in fact not being addressed and cannot be perceived as on hand. Even Dasein’s being-alone is a BEING-WITH in the world. Being-alone is only a deficiency of BEING-WITH—the other is absent—which points directly to the positive character of BEING-WITH. The other is absent: this means that the constitution of the being of Dasein as BEING-WITH does not come to its factual fulfillment. The other can be absent only insofar as my Dasein is itself BEING-WITH. The absence of the other is a modification of the being of my very Dasein and as such is a positive mode of my being; only as BEING-WITH can Dasein be alone. On the other hand, Dasein’s being-alone is not eliminated by having a second specimen of the species man stand next to him, or perhaps ten others. Even when ten or more are on hand, Dasein can be alone, inasmuch as being-with-one-another is not based upon having similar specimens of subject-things on hand together. Just as Dasein is far from being first only a worldless subject and an ‘interior’ to which the world is added, so is it far from becoming BEING-WITH because an other turns up in fact. GA20EN §26

Furthermore, what is procured in everyday concern can be present in care such that it appears as something which is intended to be of use to others, excite them, get the better of them, which stands in some sort of relation to the others, mostly without explicit awareness of it. The others are there with us everywhere in what we are preoccupied with and directly in the world-things themselves, specifically those others whom one is with everyday. Even in absorption in the world, Dasein does not disavow itself as BEING-WITH, as which my BEING-WITH with others and the co-Dasein of others with me can be grasped. This being-with-one-another is not an additive result of the occurrence of several such others, not an epiphenomenon of a multiplicity of Daseins, something supplementary which might come about only on the strength of a certain number. On the contrary, it is because Dasein as being-in-the-world is of itself BEING-WITH that there is something like a being-with-one-another. This being of others, who are encountered along with environmental things, is for all that not a being handy and on hand, which belongs to the environmental things, but a co-Dasein. This demonstrates that even in a worldly encounter, the Dasein encountered does not become a thing but retains its Dasein-character and is still encountered by way of the world. In comparison to what was said earlier, a discordant note is heard here. We have here a worldly encounter of something whose mode of being can be taken neither as being handy nor as being on hand. This indicates that the structure of worldhood is more than what the previous analysis yielded. This structure involves not only the appresentation of environmental things. A world can also appresent Dasein, that of others as well as my own. GA20EN §26

The strangest man whom we encounter is with me in my world and is experienced as such in avoiding and passing each other by. A stone or a brick which falls from the roof strictly speaking does not move past a window. The latter way of being-with-one-another, an everyday way which is far-reaching, that of having nothing to do with one another, is not nothing, but rather a specific modification, a privation of BEING-WITH as being-dependent-upon-one-another. It is only insofar as Dasein as being-in-the-world has the basic constitution of BEING-WITH that there is a being-for and —against and —without-one-another right to the indifferent walking-alongside-one-another. GA20EN §26

It is important for this basic phenomenal composition of being-with-one-another to be made perfectly clear. In spite of all the former prejudices of philosophy and all the usual attempts to explain and deduce such phenomena, this phenomenon must be brought to an unadulterated givenness. And this is possible, since from the start the basic constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world already stands before us. In order to understand not only this character of BEING-WITH but also the following characters, it must be kept in mind from the start that all these phenomena, which we naturally can discuss here only in a sequential treatment, are not derived from one another in accordance, say, with their structure of being, but are co-original with each other. It is true that all other characters can be made understandable only in terms of the basic constitution of in-being, but they do not first turn up in the course of being Dasein or in any other development of Dasein. GA20EN §26

Being-with-one-another, which combines the structure of being of my own temporally particular Dasein as BEING-WITH and the mode of being of others as co-Dasein, must be understood in terms of this basic constitution of being-in-the-world. Here it should be noted that the closest kind of encounter with another lies in the direction of the very world in which concern is absorbed. Our procedure is therefore not to lay down some concept of man and then maintain, since man presumably has to be a ‘social being,’ that the structure of BEING-WITH belongs to Dasein. Instead, from the phenomenal state of the everydayness of Dasein itself it becomes evident that not only the others but remarkably ‘one oneself’ is there in what one attends to everyday. GA20EN §26

We must therefore keep in mind that the worldhood of the world appresents not only world-things—the environing world in the narrower sense—but also, although not as worldly being, the co-Dasein of others and my own self. But this means that a worldly encounter of something does not yet decide for itself about the kind of being of what is encountered. This can be appresented as being handy and being on hand, co-Dasein or self-Dasein. Not to be denied phenomenally is the finding that co-Dasein—the Dasein of others—and my own Dasein are encountered by way of the world. On the strength of this worldly encountering of others, they can be distinguished from the world-things in their being on hand and being handy in the environing world and demarcated as a ‘with-world,’ while my own Dasein, insofar as it is encountered environmentally, can be taken as the ‘self-world.’ This is the way I saw things in my earlier courses and coined the terms accordingly. But the matter is basically false. The terminology shows that the phenomena are not adequately grasped in this way, that the others, though they are encountered in the world, really do not have and never have the world’s kind of being. The others therefore cannot be designated as a ‘with-world.’ The possibility of the worldly encounter of Dasein and co-Dasein is indeed constitutive of the being-in-the-world of Dasein and so of every other, but it never becomes something worldly as a result. Whenever the qualification ‘with’ is added to the phenomenon ‘world’ and we speak of a ‘with-world,’ things are turned the wrong way. This is why I now have used the term ‘BEING-WITH’ from the start. By contrast, the world itself is never there with us, it is never Dasein-with, co-Dasein; it is that in which Dasein is at any given time as concern. Of course, that still does not adequately clarify this remarkable possibility of the world, namely, that it lets us encounter Dasein, the alien Dasein as well as my own. We shall be able to make this clarification only in later contexts. GA20EN §26

BEING-WITH as a basic constitution of Dasein first has to be understood wholly within its mode of being of everydayness. We have thus characterized the world as defined by the structure of meaningfulness. This means that the world can always be understood by the Dasein which is in it in very different degrees of expressness and definiteness. For since being-in-the-world is itself understanding, and understanding is not a kind of knowledge but a primary kind of being of being-in-the-world itself, and being-with-one-another is conceived as an original constitution of Dasein, it follows that the latter is eo ipso an understanding of one another. Such an understanding operates in a milieu of changing familiarity and understandability. Even a savage transplanted among us exercises his understanding in this world, even though it can be utterly strange to him in its detail. GA20EN §26

The apparently presuppositionless approach which says, ‘First there is only a subject, and then a world is brought to it,’ is far from being critical and phenomenally adequate. So is the assumption which holds that first a subject is given only for itself and the question is, how does it come to another subject? Since only the lived experiences of my own interior are first given, how is it possible for me to apprehend the lived experiences of others as well, how can I “feel my way into” them, empathize with them? It is assumed that a subject is encapsulated within itself and now has the task of empathizing with another subject. This way of formulating the question is absurd, since there never is such a subject in the sense it is assumed here. If the constitution of what is Dasein is instead regarded without presuppositions as in-being and BEING-WITH in the presuppositionless immediacy of everydayness, it then becomes clear that the problem of empathy is just as absurd as the question of the reality of the external world. GA20EN §26

Thus the exposition of this new character of in-being—BEING-WITH—specifically in its mode of being drawn from the world, also presses toward the question from which we started: Who is this Dasein in its everydayness? We must not succumb to the deception that when we say, “Dasein is in each instance mine”—the being which I myself am—, the answer to the question of the who of Dasein in its everydayness is also already given. Precisely because the Who asks about the who of its being, it codetermines itself with regard to the being of the Dasein which in its manner of being is in each instance what it is. This phenomenological explication takes the Dasein in its mode of being of everydayness, in concerned absorption with one another in the world. Dasein as BEING-WITH is this being-with-one-another. The who of the being of being-with-one-another therefore receives its answer from this being-with-one-another. The who of everydayness is the ‘Anyone’ [das ‘Man’]. GA20EN §26

It was already suggested that in the “first of all and most of all” of everyday concern, the temporally particular Dasein is always what it pursues. One is what one does. The everyday interpretation of Dasein takes its horizon of interpretation and naming from what is of concern in each particular instance. One is a shoemaker, tailor, teacher, banker. Here Dasein is something which others also can be and are. The others are environmentally there with us, their co-Dasein is taken into account, not only because what is of concern has the character of being useful and helpful for others, but also because others provide the same things of concern. In both respects to the others, the BEING-WITH with them stands in a relationship to them: with regard to the others and to what the others pursue, one’s own concern is more or less effective or useful; in relation to those who provide the exact same things, one’s own concern is regarded as more or less outstanding, backward, appreciated, or the like. The others are not only simply on hand in the concern for what one provides with, for, and against them; rather, concern as concern constantly lives in the concern [Sorge] over being different from them, even if only to equalize that difference; it may be that one’s own Dasein is falling behind the others and wants to catch up, as it were, or that it has an advantage over them and is intent on keeping them down. This peculiar structure of being, which governs our being with others in the everyday manner of concern, shall be called the phenomenon of apartness—Dasein’s concern over being apart—regardless of how conscious we are of it. On the contrary, it is just when everyday concern is not aware of it that this kind of being with the others is perhaps much more stubbornly and primordially there. There are human beings, for example, who do what they do purely out of ambition, without any bearing on what they are pursuing. All of these particulars here of course involve no moral judgments or the like. They only characterize movements in the raw sense, so to speak, which Dasein makes in its everydayness. GA20EN §26

One’s own concern—Dasein as BEING-WITH—has placed the others in its care in this way [in its concern over being apart]. To put it more adequately, Dasein as BEING-WITH is lived by the co-Dasein of others and the world which concerns it in this or that way. Right in its own-most everyday pursuits, Dasein as being with the others is not itself. Instead, it is the others who live one’s own Dasein. These others moreover do not have to be definite others. Any other can represent them. It really does not matter who it is at the time. What matters is only the others to whom one’s own Dasein itself belongs. These others, to whom one oneself belongs and who one is in being-with-one-another, constitute the ‘subject,’ so to speak, which in its constant presence pursues and manages every everyday concern. GA20EN §26

Now insofar as Dasein in its concern for its world is BEING-WITH and as such is absorbed with the others in the world, this common world is at the same time the world which each one of us has placed in his care as a public environment which one puts to use and takes into account and moves about in. Here we move with others in modes of being which every other is just as I am, where every distinction in occupation and profession collapses. The being-with-one-another dissolves one’s own Dasein totally into the mode of being of the others. The Dasein allows itself to be carried along by others in such a way that the others in their distinctiveness vanish even more. In the sphere of its possibilities of being, each is totally the other. It is here that the peculiar ‘subject’ of everydayness—the Anyone—first has its total domination. The public being-with-one-another is lived totally from this Anyone. We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as one takes pleasure and we read and judge about literature as one judges, we hear music as one hears music, we speak about something as one speaks. GA20EN §26

This Anyone, who is no one in particular and ‘all’ are, though not as a sum, dictates the mode of being of everyday Dasein. The Anyone itself has its own ways to be. We have already characterized one of them with the phenomenon of apartness. The tendency of BEING-WITH to be on the basis of being different from others has in turn its ground, inasmuch as this being-with-one-another and concern have the character of averageness. This averageness is an existential determination of the Anyone; it is that around which everything turns for the Anyone, what is essentially at issue for it. That is why the Anyone holds itself factically in the averageness of what belongs to it and what it takes as valid. This polished averageness of the everyday interpretation of Dasein, of the assessment of the world and the similar averageness of customs and manners watches over every exception which thrusts itself to the fore. Every exception is short-lived and quietly suppressed. Anything original is smoothed out overnight into something which is available to Everyman and no longer barred to anyone. This essential averageness of the Anyone is in turn grounded in an original mode of being of the Anyone. This mode is given in its absorption in the world, in what can be called the levelling of being-with-one-another, the levelling of all differences. GA20EN §26

Thus, this further constitutive state of the being of the Anyone shows itself in the public, namely, that it always unburdens a person’s own Dasein. Insofar as there is in Dasein the tendency to take and do things lightly, this unburdening of being which Dasein cultivates as BEING-WITH obligingly accommodates it. In thus accommodating Dasein with this unburdening of its being, the public maintains a stubborn dominion. Everyone is the other and no one is himself. The Anyone, which answers the question of the who of everyday Dasein, is the Nobody, to whom every Dasein has of itself already surrendered itself in the public being-with-one-another. GA20EN §26

But now it must be noted phenomenologically that this ‘nobody,’ which I have just exhibited in bold outlines from various sides, is in fact not nothing. The Anyone is an undeniable, demonstrable phenomenon of Dasein itself as BEING-WITH in the world. It cannot be said that, because there are no categories for it and because one is of the opinion that only something like a chair really is, this Anyone is actually nothing. Instead, the concept of being must itself be directed toward this undeniable phenomenon. The Anyone is not nothing, but it is also not a worldly thing which I can see, grasp, and weigh. The more public this Anyone is, the less comprehensible it is and the less it is nothing, so little that it really constitutes the who of one’s own Dasein in each instance in everydayness. GA20EN §26

Even when we ask about the who, the drift of ordinary language already brings with it the ready implication that we are asking about an entity on hand as a setting, so to speak, in which Dasein takes place. This makes it all the more urgent to revert to phenomenological research: Before words, before expressions, always the phenomena first, and then the concepts! On the basis of the phenomenological finding of the Anyone, we must now maintain our orientation toward the authenticity of Dasein, toward the self which Dasein can be, such that it does not really extricate itself from this being-with-one-another but, while this remains constitutive in it as BEING-WITH, it is still itself. GA20EN §26

The analysis of Dasein as BEING-WITH relating to its mode of being as the Anyone served to show that Dasein itself, more accurately one oneself, is co-discovered in the world of concern precisely in the public world. The world is at any given time not only disclosed, in letting something be encountered in concern, in its meaningfulness as the oriented wherein of the being of Dasein, but Dasein is itself there relative to its in-being, itself there for itself. Dasein in its being-there-with, intimately involved in what is of concern, is itself discovered in a certain sense. GA20EN §28

In what follows, we shall first consider the discourse of everydayness. Language is the possibility of the being of Dasein such that language makes Dasein manifest in its discoveredness by way of interpretation and thus by way of meaning. Dasein is thus at least already exposed in the way we understand its constitution in regard to in-being and BEING-WITH. The structures already considered are necessary structures for the essential structure of language itself, but they are not yet sufficient. GA20EN §28

As self-articulation of in-being and BEING-WITH, speaking is being toward the world—discourse. It expresses itself first and foremost as a speaking concern for a world. This means that discourse is discourse about something, such that the about-which becomes manifest in the discourse. This becoming manifest of what is under discussion for all that does not need to become known expressly and thematically. Likewise, discoursing about . . . does not stand primarily in the service of an investigative knowledge. Rather, making manifest through discourse first and foremost has the sense of interpretive appresentation of the environment under concern; to begin with, it is not at all tailored to knowledge, research, theoretical propositions, and propositional contexts. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to begin the analysis of language by examining the theoretical proposition of logic or the like. But to understand this, the founded sense of the being of knowing and interpreting must first become evident. GA20EN §28

All discourse, in saying something about something, which it does first of all wholly in the course of concerned preoccupation and being with one another, is, as a mode of the being of Dasein, essentially BEING-WITH. In other words, the very sense of any discourse is discourse to others and with others. It therefore makes no difference for the essential structure of discourse whether a fixed address directed to a specific other is of current interest or not. Discourse as a mode of being of Dasein qua BEING-WITH is essentially communication, so that in every discourse that about which it is, is shared with the other through what is said, through the said as such. Communication accordingly means the enabling of the appropriation of that about which the discourse is, that is, making it possible to come into a relationship of preoccupation and being to that of which the discourse is. Discourse as communication brings about an appropriation of the world in which one always already is in being with one another. The understanding of communication is the participation in what is manifest. All subsequent understanding and co-understanding is as BEING-WITH a taking part. Communication must be understood in terms of the structure of Dasein as being with the other. It is not a matter of transporting information and experiences from the interior of one subject to the interior of the other one. It is rather a matter of being-with-one-another becoming manifest in the world, specifically by way of the discovered world, which itself becomes manifest in speaking with one another. Speaking with one another about something is not an exchange of experiences back and forth between subjects, but a situation where the being-with-one-another is intimately involved in the subject matter under discussion. And it is only by way of this subject matter, in the particular context of always already BEING-WITH in the world, that mutual understanding develops. GA20EN §28

Here is something essential to keep in mind: Phonetic speaking and acoustical hearing are in their being founded in discoursing and hearing as modes of being of being-in-the-world and BEING-WITH. There is phonetic speaking only because there is the possibility of discourse, just as there is acoustical hearing only because being-with-one-another is characterized originally as BEING-WITH in the sense of listening-to-one-another. BEING-WITH is not being on hand also among other humans; as being-in-the-world it means at the same time being ‘in bondage’ [hörig] to the others, that is, ‘heeding’ and ‘obeying’ them, listening [hören] or not listening to them. BEING-WITH has the structure of belonging [Zu(ge)hörigkeit] to the other. It is only by virtue of this primary belonging that there is something like separation, group formation, development of society, and the like. This listening to one another, in which BEING-WITH cultivates itself, is more accurately a compliance in being-with-one-another, a co-enactment in concern. The negative forms of enactment, non-compliance, not listening, opposition, and the like are really only privative modes of belonging itself. It is on the basis of such a capacity to listen constitutive of in-being that there is something like hearkening. GA20EN §28

Even in hearing discourse we first in fact hear what is said. Even when we do not understand the discourse, when it is unclear or perhaps the language is foreign, even then we first hear incomprehensible words and not mere phonetic data. We first hear what is said and not its being said, not the process of discourse as such but the about-which of the discourse. We can of course at the same time listen to the way it is being said—the diction—but even this is heard only in the prior co-understanding of the about-which, for only then do I have the possibility of grasping how something is being said. The reply to a discourse likewise follows first from understanding the about-which of the said, from its sense at the time. Hearing belongs to discoursing as BEING-WITH belongs to being-in-the-world. Hearing and discoursing are both phenomenally given co-originally with understanding. Hearing is the basic mode of being-with-one-another which understands. Only he who can discourse and hear can speak. That something like ear lobes and eardrums are given for this hearing is purely accidental. The possibility of hearkening exists only where there is the possibility of being able to discourse and to hear. Someone who genuinely cannot hear, as when we say of a man, ‘he cannot hear’ (where we do not mean that he is deaf), is still quite capable of hearkening, and precisely for this reason, because “not hearing but only hearkening” is a particular privative modification of hearing and understanding. GA20EN §28

Genuinely enacted and heard, communication brings an understanding BEING-WITH to fruition in what is talked over. Since the communication is being said in words, what is said is ‘verbal’ for the other, which means that it is available in a worldly way. The articulated is accompanied by an understanding in public, in which what is talked over does not necessarily have to be appresented as something on hand and handy. In other words, articulated discourse can be understood without an original BEING-WITH involved in what the discourse is about. This means that in hearing and subsequent understanding, the understanding relation-of-being to that about which the discourse is can be left undetermined, uninvolved, even emptied to the point of a merely formal belief in what the original understanding had intended. The matter being spoken of thus slips away with the absence of the understanding relation of being. But while the matter being talked about slips away, what is said as such—the word, the sentence, the dictum—continues to be available in a worldly way, along with a certain understanding and interpretation of the matter. The discourse is of course uprooted in the absence of right understanding, but it still retains an understandability. And since such a discourse, which has become groundless, always remains discourse, it can be repeated and passed along without proper understanding. The hearing of discourse is now no longer participation in the being of being-with-one-another involved in the matter being talked over, for the matter itself now is no longer uncovered in an original way. Instead, hearing is BEING-WITH involved in what is said in terms of its being said as such. Hearing is now hearing mere talk as talk and understanding is understanding based on mere hearsay. Things so heard and in a certain way understood can be passed along, and this process of passing along and repeating now produces a growing groundlessness of what was originally articulated. Discourse undergoes an increase in groundlessness in repetitive talk to the extent that a hardening of a specific opinion being expressed in discourse corresponds to such groundlessness. Such discourse, which is cultivated in the uprooting engendered by repetitive talk, is idle talk. I am referring to a well-defined phenomenon with this term, which as such carries no disparaging connotation whatsoever. GA20EN §28

The term ‘falling’ designates a movement of the being of the happening of Dasein and once again should not be taken as a value judgment, as if it indicated a base property of Dasein which crops up from time to time, which is to be deplored and perhaps eliminated in advanced stages of human culture. Like discoveredness, BEING-WITH and in-being, falling refers to a constitutive structure of the being of Dasein, in particular a specific phenomenon of in-being, in which Dasein first constantly has its being. If we orient ourselves once again in the ‘between’ of world and Dasein, then the dwelling in the Anyone and in the idle talk of this being is in an uprooted state of suspension. But this uprooting is just what constitutes the solid everydayness of Dasein, [and idle talk is] one way of falling in which Dasein loses itself. GA20EN §29

There is a double ambiguity involved in this phenomenon. The first affects the world, which is what is encountered and what happens in being-with-one-another. In this regard, the aggravation of falling stemming from ambiguity has the functional sense of suppressing the Dasein in the Anyone. The second ambiguity affects not only the world but BEING-WITH itself, my own being and that of others. With regard to this being-toward-one-another, the aggravation of falling at the time is a prior neutralization cutting off the genuine rootedness of Dasein in itself, which means that the ambiguity does not let Dasein come to an original relationship of being in being with one another. GA20EN §29

A third moment to be distinguished from being afraid of something is fearing about and for another. That about which we fear is first of all the others with whom we are. In other words, fearing about, which is primarily related to others and only indirectly to things in the world, is a way of BEING-WITH with the others, specifically in their being threatened. I fear for him, specifically because of what threatens him from the world. Fearing about another is or can be a genuine way of BEING-WITH the other by way of the world. GA20EN §30

This fear for another as a BEING-WITH another is however not a fearing with another, since I can fear for the other without his being afraid. In fact, perhaps I am right in my fear about him precisely because the menace as such does not confront him, because he is blind to it or foolhardy. Fearing for another also does not mean that I take his fear away from him, so that he does not necessarily have to be in fear at all, since I can fear for him. What is threatened here, about which I fear in fearing about the other, is the BEING-WITH with the other, his co-Dasein, and thus at the same time my own BEING-WITH with him. But my own BEING-WITH with him is not that about which I am directly afraid in my fearing about the other. In other words, in this fearing about and for the other I myself am not actually afraid. GA20EN §30

Fearing for another thus proves to be a distinctive phenomenon of BEING-WITH. And it becomes clear that being with one another by way of the world is constitutive of it. The specific relations are as follows: the co-entity in the sense of the one who fears for the others, is with the other precisely when he is not in the other’s mode of being; thus either he is not afraid with the other in the true sense of being afraid; or the other is not necessarily afraid when I am in fear about him. This fearing about is in a way an anticipation of fear for the others, without oneself necessarily having to be afraid. I cannot go any further here into the final correlations which are revealed here in regard to the structure of being with one another. GA20EN §30

The interpretation of Dasein in the everydayness of being opened the prospect for understanding the fundamental constitutive states of this entity. Structures like being-in-the-world, in-being and BEING-WITH, the Anyone, discoveredness, understanding, falling, and care came to light. The latter phenomenon at the same time reveals the unifying root of this manifold of structures. We have constantly reiterated that these structures are co-original. To say that they are co-original means that they always already belong with and to the phenomenon of care. They are ingrained in it even when they do not come to the foreground. These structures are therefore not optional additions to something which might from the start be akin to care without them. Nor do we have something which could be shaped into what we have called the phenomenon of care by putting these structures together. But if our inquiry is pointed toward the being of Dasein, as we have constantly done here, then whenever Dasein is interrogated, it is always already meant in the co-originality of these structures. Thus, when I phenomenologically envisage discoveredness or the Anyone or falling, the unity of these structures is always co-intended. GA20EN §32

But there still seems to be a way to make Dasein in its wholeness the theme of a characterization of being, particularly if we do not lose sight of a character of Dasein which we have already demonstrated. Dasein as being-in-the-world, we said earlier, is at the same time being-with-one-another. Insofar as death for Dasein constitutes being-at-an-end in the sense of no longer being Dasein, death in fact prevents me from having and experiencing my own Dasein in its wholeness. But this possibility still remains for the others with whom this Dasein as BEING-WITH once was. The Dasein which still is for the time being as BEING-WITH others has the possibility of regarding the Dasein of others as concluded and, it seems, to read off in it the totality of the being of such an entity. But the reference to this alternative of taking the Dasein of others which has come to an end as a substitute theme is a dubious bit of information. And this is not because the apprehension of the connections of being, which in the Dasein of others constitute what is last of all still outstanding, runs into special difficulties in experiencing the dying of others in its authentic sense. It is not this chance difficulty which shows that this alternative is in principle inappropriate. The reasons which prohibit a reference to the Dasein of others as an alternative are of a more fundamental kind: GA20EN §33

2) This sort of information not only mistakes the kind of being which belongs to Dasein. It even presupposes that the temporally particular Dasein can be arbitrarily replaced by another. If I perchance cannot observe something in myself, I can see it in the other. What then is the standing [Bewandtnis] of the presupposition that Dasein is an entity which in principle and always could replace an entity of its own kind of being, another Dasein? This possibility does in fact belong to BEING-WITH as being with one another in the world. I can replace the other precisely in the everyday kind of being of concerned absorption in the world. In what then?—in what he does, in the world in which he is concerned and in this very concern. It was shown earlier that Dasein in its everyday self-interpretation sees itself, interprets, considers, and names itself precisely in terms of what it in each case does. One is what one does. In this being of everyday absorption with one another in the world, we can in a certain way mutually replace one another, the one can within limits take over the Dasein of the other. But such a substitution always takes place only ‘in’ something, which means that it is oriented to a concern, to a specific what. GA20EN §33

This implies that the utmost possibility of death is the way of being of Dasein in which it is purely and simply thrown back upon itself, so absolutely that even BEING-WITH in its concretion of “to be with others” becomes irrelevant. Of course, even in dying, Dasein is of its essence being-in-the-world and BEING-WITH with others, but the being is now transposed authentically directly to the ‘I am.’ Only in dying can I to some extent say absolutely, ‘I am.’ GA20EN §34

The actor is without conscience; that is, in being with one another he who acts necessarily becomes ‘guilty,’ not in the sense that he commits this or that blunder. As an active BEING-WITH with others and as such, Dasein is eo ipso guilty, even when—and precisely when—it does not know that it is injuring another or destroying him in his Dasein. With the choice of being willing to have conscience, I have at the same time chosen to have become guilty. The genuine kind of being of Dasein corresponding to its utmost and ownmost possibility (the ownmost being-ahead-of-itself enacted by itself) is what we have characterized as the forerunning of willing to have conscience, which at the same time means choosing the essential guilt of Dasein itself, insofar as it is. GA20EN §35

Submitted on 20.09.2023 18:06
This entry has been seen individually 57 times.

Bookmark to Fark  Bookmark to Reddit  Bookmark to Blinklist  Bookmark to Technorati  Bookmark to Newsvine  Bookmark to Mister Wong  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Bookmark to Digg  Bookmark to Google  Share with friends at Facebook  Twitter  Bookmark to Linkarena  Bookmark to Oneview  Bookmark to Stumbleupon Bookmark to StudiVZ

Powered by XOOPS © 2001-2012 The XOOPS Project