Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Meaning and intelligibility in Being and Time.
Dasein only 'has' meaning, so far as the disclosedness of Being-in-the-world can be 'filled in' by the entities discoverable in that disclosedness. Hence only Dasein can be meaningful [sinnvoll] or meaningless [sinnlos]. That is to say, its own Being and the entities disclosed with its Being can be appropriated in understanding, or can remain relegated to non-understanding.¶ 5:12 PM
This interpretation of the concept of 'meaning' is one which is ontological-existential in principle; if we adhere to it, then all entities whose kind of Being is of a character other than Dasein's must be conceived as unmeaning [unsinniges], essentially devoid of any meaning at all. Here 'unmeaning' does not signify that we are saying anything about the value of such entities, but it gives expression to an ontological characteristic. And only that which is unmeaning can be absurd [widersinnig]. The present-at-hand, as Dasein encounters it, can, as it were, assault Dasein's Being; natural events, for instance, can break in upon us and destroy us.
And if we are inquiring about the meaning of Being, our investigation does not then become a "deep" one, nor does it puzzle out what stands behind Being. It asks about Being itself in so far as Being enters into the intelligibility of Dasein. The meaning of Being can never be contrasted with entities, or with Being as the 'ground' which gives entities support; for a 'ground' becomes accessible only as meaning, even if it is itself the abyss of meaninglessness.
P. 193-194
Comments:
<< Home
"... for a 'ground' becomes accessible only as meaning, even if it is itself the abyss of meaninglessness."
Later Heidegger no longer searched for meaning. He was quite satisfied with Abgrund. Borrowing Silesius poem, he quoted "The rose is without why; it blooms because it blooms; It cares not for itself, asks not if it’s seen." [Principle of Reason, 35]. He argued that the "why" would create grounding whereas the "because" started with the fact that the rose blooms. No "why" is needed. Does it mean no meaning is needed? You could read Caputo on this.
Later Heidegger no longer searched for meaning. He was quite satisfied with Abgrund. Borrowing Silesius poem, he quoted "The rose is without why; it blooms because it blooms; It cares not for itself, asks not if it’s seen." [Principle of Reason, 35]. He argued that the "why" would create grounding whereas the "because" started with the fact that the rose blooms. No "why" is needed. Does it mean no meaning is needed? You could read Caputo on this.
Can you point to a specific section from Caputo?
I disagree that Heidegger changed in his basic notion of beyng as meaningfulness, even where there are changes in nuance throughout his writings.
Heidegger is saying there is no ontotheological meaning for the rose blooming, as there may have been in, say, Aristotle. But the fact that Silesius or Heidegger care to comment on the rose's blooming indicates that the rose has meaningfulness for dasein.
I disagree that Heidegger changed in his basic notion of beyng as meaningfulness, even where there are changes in nuance throughout his writings.
Heidegger is saying there is no ontotheological meaning for the rose blooming, as there may have been in, say, Aristotle. But the fact that Silesius or Heidegger care to comment on the rose's blooming indicates that the rose has meaningfulness for dasein.
Hi .. Try "The Mystical Elements in Heidegger Thoughts" by Caputo.
Well, actually it depends on how you define "meaning". It is so easy to associate "meaning" with a rational, logical explanation. In fact that's what most of us do in our searching for meaning. We simply cannot stand the "meaninglessness".
Well, actually it depends on how you define "meaning". It is so easy to associate "meaning" with a rational, logical explanation. In fact that's what most of us do in our searching for meaning. We simply cannot stand the "meaninglessness".
I guess I'll have to excerpt a bit on the chapter on the Silesian rose from that book one of these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home
