Search
Who is Online
33 user(s) are online (33 user(s) are browsing Léxico Filosofia)

Members: 0
Guests: 33

more...
Novos Termos
Termos Populares
Home Léxico Filosofia  Léxico Filosofia D  D derivative derivative
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  |

derivative

Definition:
Derivative (abkünftig; abgeleitet, Derivat, Herkunft): character of statement, 133, 153-160, (§ 33); sense of "certainty," 256; conception of guile, 287; conception of time, 326, 329-331; conception of truth, 214, 219-226 (§ 44b), 256, kinds of understanding, 143, 147, 152, 160; underived character of Being, 4, 8; underived character of care, 182, 318; history as derivation (Herkunft) from the past, 378; et passim. See also deficient; privative (BT)


With regard to its subject-matter, phenomenology is the science of the Being of entities – ontology. In explaining the tasks of ontology we found it necessary that there should be’ a fundamental ontology taking as its theme that entity which is ontologico-ontically distinctive, Dasein, in order to confront the cardinal problem – the question of the meaning of Being in general. Our investigation itself will show that the meaning of phenomenological description as a method lies in interpretation. The logos of the phenomenology of Dasein has the character of a hermeneuein, through which the authentic meaning of Being, and also those basic structures of Being which Dasein itself possesses, are made known to Dasein’s understanding of Being. The phenomenology of Dasein is a hermeneutic in the primordial signification of this word, where it designates this business of interpreting. But to the extent that by uncovering the meaning of Being and the basic structures of Dasein in general we may exhibit the horizon for any further ontological study of those entities which do not have the character of Dasein, this hermeneutic also becomes a ‘hermeneutic’ in the sense of working out the conditions on which the possibility of any ontological investigation depends. And finally, to the extent that Dasein, as an entity with the possibility of existence, has ontological priority over every other entity, “hermeneutic”, as an interpretation of Dasein’s Being, has the third and specific sense of an analytic of the existentiality of existence; and this is the sense which is philosophically primary. Then so far as this hermeneutic works out Dasein’s historicality ontologically as the ontical condition for the possibility of historiology, it contains the roots of what can be called ‘hermeneutic’ only in a DERIVATIVE sense: the methodology of those humane sciences which are historiological in character. [SZ:38] BTMR §7

The DERIVATIVE form ‘worldly’ will then apply terminologically to a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein, never to a kind which belongs to entities present-at-hand ‘in’ the world. We shall designate these latter entities as “belonging to the world” or “within-the-world” [weltzugehörig oder innerweltlich]. BTMR §14

Under A (the existential Constitutuon of the “there”) we shall accordingly treat: Being-there as state-of-mind (Section 29); fear as a mode of state-of-mind (Section 30); Being-there as understanding (Section 31); understanding and interpretation (Section 32); assertion as a DERIVATIVE mode of interpretation (Section 33); Being-there, discourse, and language (Section 34). BTMR §28

State-of-mind is one of the existential structures in which the Being of the ‘there’ maintains itself. Equiprimordial with it in constituting this Being is understanding. A state-of-mind always has its understanding, even if it merely keeps it suppressed. Understanding always has its mood. If we Interpret understanding as a fundamental existentiale, this indicates that this phenomenon is conceived as a basic mode of Dasein’s Being. On the other hand, ‘understanding’ in the sense of one possible kind of cognizing among others (as distinguished, for instance, from ‘explaining’), must, like explaining, be Interpreted as an existential DERIVATIVE of that primary understanding which is one of the constituents of the Being of the “there” in general. [SZ:143] BTMR §31

As the disclosedness of the “there”, understanding always pertains to the whole of Being-in-the-world. In every understanding of the world, existence is understood with it, and vice versa. All interpretation, moreover, operates in the fore-structure, which we have already characterized. Any interpretation which is to contribute understanding, must already have understood what is to be interpreted. This is a fact that has always been remarked, even if only in the area of DERIVATIVE ways of understanding and interpretation, such as philological Interpretation. The latter belongs within the range of scientific knowledge. Such knowledge demands the rigour of a demonstration to provide grounds for it. In a scientific proof, we may not presuppose what it is our task to provide grounds for. But if interpretation must in any case already operate in that which is understood, and if it must draw its nurture from this, how is it to bring any scientific results to maturity without moving in a circle, especially if, moreover, the understanding which is presupposed still operates within our common information about man and the world? Yet according to’ the most elementary rules of logic, this circle is a circulus vitiosus. If that be so, however, the business of historiological interpretation is excluded a priori from the domain of rigorous knowledge. In so far as the Fact of this circle in understanding is not eliminated, historiology must then be resigned to less rigorous possibilities of knowing. Historiology is permitted to compensate for this defect to some extent through the ‘spiritual signification’ of its ‘objects’. But even in the opinion of the historian himself, it would admittedly be more ideal if the circle could be avoided and if there remained the hope of creating some time a historiology which would be as independent of the standpoint of the observer as our knowledge of Nature is supposed to be. BTMR §32

§33. Assertion as a DERIVATIVE Mode of Interpretation BTMR §33

All interpretation is grounded on understanding. That which has been articulated as such in interpretation and sketched out beforehand in the understanding in general as something articulable, is the meaning. In so far as assertion (‘judgment’) is grounded on understanding and presents us with a DERIVATIVE form in which an interpretation has been carried out, it too ‘has’ a meaning. Yet this meaning cannot be defined as something which occurs ‘in’ [“an”] a judgment along with the judging itself. In our [SZ:154] present context, we shall give an explicit analysis of assertion, and this analysis will serve several purposes. BTMR §33

But to what extent does it become a DERIVATIVE mode of interpretation? What has been modified in it? We can point out the modification if we stick to certain limiting cases of assertion which function in logic as normal cases and as examples of the ‘simplest’ assertion-phenomena. Prior to all analysis, logic has already understood ‘logically’ what it takes as a theme under the heading of the “categorical statement” – for instance, ‘The hammer is heavy’. The unexplained presupposition is that the ‘meaning’ of this sentence is to be taken as: “This Thing – a hammer – has the property of heaviness”. In concernful circumspection there are no such assertions ‘at first’. But such circumspection has of course its specific ways of interpreting, and these, as compared with the ‘theoretical judgment’ just mentioned, may take some such form as ‘The hammer is too heavy’, or rather just ‘Too heavy!’, ‘Hand me the other hammer!’ Interpretation is carried out primordially not in a theoretical statement but in an action of circumspective concern – laying aside the unsuitable tool, or exchanging it, ‘without wasting words’. From the fact that words are absent, it may not be concluded that interpretation is absent. On the other hand, the kind of interpretation which is circumspectively expressed is not necessarily already an assertion in the sense we have defined. By what existential-ontological modifications does assertion arise from circums interpretation? BTMR §33

Within the horizon of the traditional Interpretation of the phenomenon of truth, our insight into these principles will not be complete until it can be shown: (1) that truth, understood as agreement, originates from disclosedness by way of definite modification; (2) that the kind of Being which belongs to disclosedness itself is such that its DERIVATIVE modification first comes into view and leads the way for the theoretical explication of the structure of truth. BTMR §44

Assertion and its structure (namely, the apophantical “as”) are founded upon interpretation and its structure (viz, the hermeneutical “as”) and also upon understanding – upon Dasein’s disclosedness. Truth, however, is regarded as a distinctive character of assertion as so derived. Thus the roots of the truth of assertion reach back to the disclosedness of the understanding. But over and above these indications of how the truth of assertion has originated, the phenomenon of agreement must now be exhibited explicitly in its DERIVATIVE character. BTMR §44

Though it is founded upon Dasein’s disclosedness, the existential phenomenon of uncoveredness becomes a property which is present-at-hand but in which there still lurks a relational character; and as such a property, it gets broken asunder into a relationship which is present-at-hand. Truth as disclosedness and as a Being-towards uncovered entities – a Being which itself uncovers – has become truth as agreement between things which are present-at-hand within-the-world. And thus we have pointed out the ontologically DERIVATIVE character of the traditional conception of truth. BTMR §44

To be certain of an entity means to hold it for true as something true. But “truth” signifies the uncoveredness of some entity, and all uncoveredness is grounded ontologically in the most primordial truth, the disclosedness of Dasein. As an entity which is both disclosed and disclosing, and one which uncovers, Dasein is essentially ‘in the truth’. But certainty is grounded in the truth, or belongs to it equiprimordially. The expression ‘certainty’, like the term ‘truth’, has a double signification. Primordially “truth” means the same as “Being-disclosive”, as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the DERIVATIVE signification: “the uncoveredness of entities”. Correspondingly, “certainty”, in its primordial signification, is tantamount to “Being-certain”, as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a DERIVATIVE signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something ‘certain’. BTMR §52

The meaning of the “call” becomes plain if, in our understanding of it, we stick to the existential sense of “Being-guilty”, instead of making basic the DERIVATIVE conception of guilt in the sense of an indebtedness which has arisen’ through some deed done or left undone. Such a demand is not arbitrary, if the call of conscience, coming from Dasein itself, is directed towards that entity alone. But if so, the “summons to Being-guilty” signifies a calling-forth to that potentiality-for-Being which in each case I as Dasein am already. Dasein need not first load a ‘guilt’ upon itself through its failures or omissions; it must only be ‘guilty!’ authentically – ‘guilty’ in the way in which it is. BTMR §58

The phenomenal content of this meaning, drawn from the state of Being of anticipatory resoluteness, fills in the signification of the term “temporality”. In our terminological use of this expression, we must hold ourselves aloof from all those significations of ‘future’, ‘past’, and ‘Present’ which thrust themselves upon us from the ordinary conception of time. This holds also for conceptions of a ‘time’ which is ‘subjective’ or ‘Objective’, ‘immanent’ or ‘transcendent’. Inasmuch as Dasein understands itself in a way which, proximally and for the most part, is inauthentic, we may suppose that ‘time’ as ordinarily understood does indeed represent a genuine phenomenon, but one which is DERIVATIVE [ein abkünftiges]. It arises from inauthentic temporality, which has a source of its own. The conceptions of ‘future’, ‘past’ and ‘Present’ have first arisen in terms of the inauthentic way of understanding time. In terminologically delimiting the primordial and authentic phenomena which correspond to these, we have to struggle against the same difficulty which keeps all ontological terminology in its grip. When violences are done in this field of investigation, they are not arbitrary but have a necessity grounded in the facts. If, however, we are to point out without gaps in the argument, how inauthentic temporality has its source in temporality which is [SZ:327] primordial and authentic, the primordial phenomenon, which we have described only in a rough and ready fashion, must first be worked out correctly. BTMR §65

In enumerating the ecstases, we have always mentioned the future first. We have done this to indicate that the future has a priority in the ecstatical unity of primordial and authentic temporality. This is so, even though temporality does not first arise through a cumulative sequence of the ecstases, but in each case temporalizes itself in their equiprimordiality. But within this equiprimordiality, the modes of temporalizing are different. The difference lies in the fact that the nature of the temporalizing can be determined primarily in terms of the different ecstases. Primordial and authentic temporality temporalizes itself in terms of the authentic future and in such a way that in having been futurally, it first of all awakens the Present. The primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future. The priority of the future will vary according to the ways in which the temporalizing of inauthentic temporality itself is modified, but it will still come to the fore even in the DERIVATIVE kind of ‘time’. BTMR §65

Inauthentic understanding temporalizes itself as an awaiting which makes present [gegenwärtigendes Geswärtigen] – an awaiting to whose ecstatical unity there must belong a corresponding “having been”. The authentic coming-towards-oneself of anticipatory resoluteness is at the sametime a coming-back to one’s ownmost Self, which has been thrown into its individualization. This ecstasis makes it possible for Dasein to be able to take over resolutely that entity which it already is. In anticipating, Dasein brings itself again forth into its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. If Being-as-having-been is authentic, we call it “repetition”. But when one projects oneself inauthentically towards those possibilities which have been drawn from the object of concern in making it present, this is possible only because Dasein has forgotten itself in its ownmost thrown potentiality-for-Being. This forgetting is not nothing, nor is it just a failure to remember; it is rather a ‘positive’ ecstatical mode of one’s having been – a mode with a character of its own. The ecstasis (rapture) of forgetting has the character of backing away in the face of one’s ownmost “been”, and of doing so in a manner which is closed off from itself – in such a manner, indeed, that this backing-away closes off ecstatically that in the face of which one is [SZ:339] backing away, and thereby closes itself off too. Having forgotten [Vergessenheit] as an inauthentic way of having been, is thus related to that thrown Being which is one’s own; it is the temporal meaning of that Being in accordance with which I am proximally and for the most part as-having-been. Only on the basis of such forgetting can anything be retained [behalten] by the concernful making-present which awaits; and what are thus retained are entities encountered within-the-world with a character other than that of Dasein. To such retaining there corresponds a non-retaining which presents us with a kind of ‘forgetting’ in a DERIVATIVE sense. BTMR §68

We may divide Dilthey’s researches schematically into three domains: studies on the theory of the humane sciences, and the distinction between these and the natural sciences; researches into the history of the sciences of man, society, and the state; endeavours towards a psychology in which the ‘whole fact of man’ is to be presented. Investigations in the theory of science, in historical science, and in psychological hermeneutics are constantly permeating and intersecting each other. Where any one point of view predominates, the others are the motives and the means. What looks like disunity and an’ unsure, ‘haphazard’ way of ‘trying things out’, is an elemental restlessness, the one goal of which is to understand ‘life’ philosophically and to secure for this understanding a hermeneutical foundation in terms of ‘life itself’. Everything centres in psychology, in which ‘life’ is to be understood in the historical context of its development and its effects, and understood as the way in which man, as the possible object of the humane sciences, and especially as the root of these sciences, is. Hermeneutics is the way this understanding enlightens itself; it is also the methodology of historiology, though only in a DERIVATIVE form. BTMR §77

Submitted on 01.03.2022 23:20
This entry has been seen individually 374 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