Archive

Forum

Beta

    Mitdasein.com    General    Heidegger on "die Welt"
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Heidegger on "die Welt"
 Login/Join
 
Mitgliedchen
posted
Dear Everybody,
I would most appreciate it if some of You enlightened people would answer the following question:
Heidegger spoke of an In-der-Welt-sein. The "openness" in this state, that according to Heidegger underlies the understanding of existence, also concerns the "world" (Welt or Bedeutsamkeit). What are the limitations of this "world"? Is it to be understood as the totality of existence or could it have been meant as a "situation", perhaps a culture? --
 
Posts: 1 | Registered: December 11, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitgliedchen
posted Hide Post
there's no specific meaning of "world". its said that "Dasein and world are not subject and object" - as a consequence, the meaning of 'world' cannot be determined very precisely. it can be said, though, that the world is 'mine', and that a peasan's world is not a teacher's world, etc. etc.

i remember an essay on "am I, or do I have, what is mine?" - its interesting since my "world" as Heidegger means it cannot be what I "have", since its not an object, but can hardly be exactly what I "am", since Im a Dasein. Thats why I doubt that the "world" could be determined more precisely.
 
Posts: 1 | Registered: January 13, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitgliedchen
posted Hide Post
Apostate:
This is where husserl's phenomenological ephoche becomes very facile. By closing out the "outside world", (or at least stridently attempting such), we see exactly how inner-oriented Dasein is. Then we run into the zillion idealist problems involved with such an approach. You wrote a tough post...
Following a bit more on Husserl's line of thought: the "world" is pretty damn negligible when taken from a throughly solipsistic type of perspective. The apperceptive faculty of consciousness becomes more and more crucial in the consideration.
I'm keeping the contents of your post in my head today, and I will keep my eyes as to the way your post progresses from here.
 
Posts: 1 | Registered: January 13, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
posted Hide Post
welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a claasifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to be closed but they can be open. you can have an open standard and open classifikation. you can have classes on all sorts of levels. privat - local - national - international - etc


AvG
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: January 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
posted Hide Post
welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a claasifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: January 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albert van Grondelle:
welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a classifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to
be closed, but they can be open. you can have open standards and open classes and classification.You also can have different levels in classes: privat - local - national - international. You can also have namespaces. Classes on the same level can fall in a namespace, heidegger calls it ligthening. Ypou can have a lightening in the forest. you can get caught in a lightening. you can also ride on the light as einstein did. you can find out what's the influence of velocity on the way you see things.


AvG
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: January 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
Yahoo IM
posted Hide Post
A QUICK NOTE ON HEIDEGGER'S
WELTLICHKEIT DER WELT

A thorough reading of chapter 3, SZ division I, shows precisely that the world is not my own. It is not as a projection of every Dasein, nor is it the summing up of all those projections. And specially, die Welt has nothing to do with Weltanschauung. One can find examples of this Heideggerian denial in Grundprobleme der Phaenomenologie (1927)and Einleitung in die Philosophie (1929). A term like Weltanschauung suggests the certainly unhappy idea that there is something like a vision of a world which is-there in the sheer Vorhandenheit.
The world is precisely that which cannot be seen but it enlightens (at the same time when it is a non thematic something) the things as they are let free to appear.
Die Welt pertains to an entity, in this case das Dasein, that has a certain direction (Ausrichtung) and that is always on his way in his unavoidable Zu-sein.
That is why one can understand Heidegger's denial of traditional thing ontology, which covers up - by means of a ontic beating about the bush - the ontological aspects of human existence.
 
Posts: 4 | Location: San Jose, Costa Rica | Registered: January 22, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
Yahoo IM
posted Hide Post
So die Welt is not visible in the sense implied in the contemplation of a thing in its mere Vorhandenheit, but certainly nothing can be viewed without it.
 
Posts: 4 | Location: San Jose, Costa Rica | Registered: January 22, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
posted Hide Post
the world enlightens the things as they are let free to appear you say. who lets the things free if not yourself with your vision on the world with your classes and namespaces with your tools. if the things are free to appear they are also free to be seen with my catogorizations, classes, names etc.


AvG
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: January 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
Yahoo IM
posted Hide Post
Am I, myself, the one who lets things free so that they can appear? I deny it, and Heidegger would too. In the first place we would have to inquire about the very ontological sense of a self. That is what the modern jargon of the subjectivity of the I has never clarified.
In Heidegger one cannot speak of a categorial imposition over things, as the Kantian case. There is rather an a priori of the world. That is the question.
 
Posts: 4 | Location: San Jose, Costa Rica | Registered: January 22, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
Yahoo IM
posted Hide Post
In effect, there is no vision of the world.
 
Posts: 4 | Location: San Jose, Costa Rica | Registered: January 22, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Mitglied
posted Hide Post
Of course there is a vision on the world, the other, even if there is an a priori of the world. There is always a experimental try to describe and analyze the world and the meaning of the processes in the world, there is always an intuition of finding out a meaning, you can always improvise a solution. Your openness for the entlightening of these processes and the other (things)and the giving meaning to them is not to deny. You do it every day, every moment.
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: January 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

    Mitdasein.com    General    Heidegger on "die Welt"

All posts, unless otherwise publishèd, are © their several authors.