'Umwelt'is only into 'in-der-Welt-sein'???,how can we mean that is...is & I intend to write a article on traditional distirict whose name is 'üsküdar'...Heidegger's 'umwelt' can be considered for 'üsküdar'
I am not able solve,if 'umwelt' is likely ontic- environment, How is related with'in- der-welt-sein'?
....Thanks

Having in mind that Umwelt is the notion for relations with the things-in-use environment and other 's Dasein (all connected with a use-for-) we place it among the ontic-concepts. However, it is undoubtly depended on the previous analysis concerning in-der-Welt-Sein, because of what ontologically allows a Being to be connected with a usefull environment. Thus, the concept of in-der-Welt-Sein shows the direct dependense of Dasein from a world of things. I hope I gave you a clue, though I 'm not sure I understood the question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ottomanic-dasein:
'Umwelt'is only into 'in-der-Welt-sein'???,how can we mean that is...is & I intend to write a article on traditional distirict whose name is 'üsküdar'...Heidegger's 'umwelt' can be considered for 'üsküdar'
I am not able to solve,if 'umwelt' is likely ontic- environment, How is related with'in- der-welt-sein'?
....Thanks

---

Thanks young philosoher from Athens:-)
Do you related 'Mitsein' (Being-with-others) and Umwelt?
Jurgen Habermas in 1988;(into the preface of Heidegger et le Nazizme),Mitsein is problematique as itself, as it can not be arrive at the shpere of the intersubjetivity and other sosyolojical frame...Does anybody idea on''Umwelt& Mitsein''???

Everything is related to almost anything in Sein und Zeit. So,Umwelt is connected with Mitsein in the fourth capitalas In-der-Welt-Sein als Mit- und Selbstsein. Das "Man". In this section it seems that the others present themselves as other users or owners of the things that we use. They help us, they serve us and they work with us in the same world. But, most important, they provide us an already-fixed interpretation of the World, so that we don't have to built one on our own. This constitutes inauthenicity. A better, more profound analysis lies in the second division concerning Death but it's rather irrelevant to Umwelt. As for Habermas, have in mind the last chapter of The philosophical Discourse of Modernity in which he makes a claim for the change of paradigm to a communicational-intersubjective model.