enowning
Thursday, August 29, 2013
 
From the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Franco Cortese on the todtality of Being.
In the section being-toward-death he claims, on one level, that Being must be a totality, and in order to be a totality (in the sense of absolute or not containing anything outside of itself) it must also be that which it is not. Being can only become what it is not through death and so in order for Being to become a totality (which he argues it must in order to achieve authenticity – which is the goal all along, after all) it must become what it is not – that is, death – for completion.
So, on achieving authenticity, I am become death? Om Namah Shivaya.
 
Comments:
I'm pretty sure Heidegger was referring to Dasein's Being when talking about Sein-zum-tode as a manner of grasping the "totality" --i.e. the phenomenal wholeness of Dasein. This is the farthest thing from a quasi Hegelian, formal and empty dialectical argument for the mutual inclusion of opposites. On the contrary, the early Heidegger's central claim of ontological difference precludes the thought of Being as totality. This is already stated in the existential-ontological concept of world, namely as that which is precisely NOT the totality because it makes it possible.
 
So many totalities to choose from, so finite a life.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version















Locations of visitors to this page

ClustrMaps only captures a fraction of actual page views, but their geographic distribution is representative.