Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Being and Time notes, Division 1

Stambaugh translation.

Division 1 of 2.

Intro

historicity = dasein's individual interpretive framework; the customary interpretations one grows into (p 20, 21)

many of these interpretive threads are passed down or instilled, i.e. they are traditional artifacts. Dasein can uncritically live within traditional frameworks or critically examine them, but in either case we to some degree grasp that we are entangled in these traditional modes of interpretation. Initially, our historicity is obscured and we see a world and concepts and values that seem “obvious”.

With regards to the question of being, heidegger therefore calls for a “destructuring of the history of ontology”, just a shaking off of the fossilized, traditional concepts so that the basics can be re-examined. For him, this is not a negative process, not a destruction or tearing down; it is rather a positive process where present “now” stuff is brought to light

Part 1

H begins by making a distinction between things in the world (i.e. "objective presence”) and a person, Dasein. Things are characterized by thatness...Dasein is characterized by “being”, which contains elements of temporality. Dasein is not just a thing, it is existence.

Dasein is always its own being; it is “being-mine”. two characteristics then- being (existence) and being for itself, being-mine.

Consequence of 1st characteristic- attributes of a table are its shape, color, texture and so on. A table is its attributes. Dasein on the other hand is its existence, not its objective attributes. Existence has priority over essence (an idea sartre would later make catchier).

Because dasein is my own being, all possibilities are my own. And all possibilities are therefore either chosen or neglected. Dasein is either authentic or inauthentic. But it begins with “averageness”, day to day non-reflective entanglement. (41). this averageness provides info about structures of existence. Most inquiries skip over this; h thinks it's where we gain the most information

Existentials = dasein stuff
categories = world stuff

beings are a who (existence) or a what (objective presence)

rest of part 1- separating ontology from modern human sciences, why the modern stuff skips over the analytic of dasein, etc

part II

being-in-the-world for physical objects means being objectively in a specific physical location. “being-in” for dasein means to “dwell near”, to be “familiar with”. Its in-ness is qualitatively different from the in-ness of things. Therefore the “world” is something that only occurs for dasein. A chair against a wall is not “touching” the wall; it simply is. “touching” is a relational concept dasein uses as an organizing perception.

Daein's mode of being-in-the-world is “care”. Care, which he will define in more detail, is a foundational structure of existence.

Dasein's being-in “worlds the world”...it establishes relational structures and care is our mode of navigating those webs of relation. In its simplest form, care is basically using stuff, using the things and objects around us, but h connects it to the meaning-systems that those things are a part of.

Because in our everyday lives we see things and ourselves amongst those things, we take this to mean that we are merely objects amongst objects; this is the mistake we make, and that traditional philosophy has made. This is the origin of subject/object thinking.

Subject/object thinking causes dasein to overlook its worlding, the fact that it generates the relational structures of the things and contexts around us. This error makes being-in-the-world, its nature, invisible to us.

Dasein is not “in” its consciousness...and it does not then go “outside” to the world to gather data about things. Dasein is being-in-the-world. It is always already outside in-the-world, entangled with it as part of a unity.

Knowing- defined as the attitude of examining, a subject/object mindset; it misses the dasein/world unity.

Part III

world- that “in which” a particular dasein lives.

When one inspects a particular object or has a mindset of focusing on objectively present things, they de-world their world. Meaning that things in the world can never make the world of existence intelligible.

Traditional ontology makes this very mistake and loses sight of the world. For h, traditional ontology is over.

How do we recover the world and better understand existence? By looking at dasein's most common states, that is, its most common points of contact with the “world”, i.e. our average, daily attitudes and actions. (this leads to h's analysis of existential spatiality, 62)

everyday being-in-the-world = “association with”, that is, we find our self associating with a variety of things, beings, tasks, etc.

care- “taking care”- is a mode of being-in-the-world and one that does not need interpretation or analysis (since analysis just repeats the subject/object dead end). It is a pre-thematic understanding of existence and therefore offers a look at dasein, world, etc.

what we find in everydayness are things...and things in their use-value exist in a state of reference. Things are “in order to”, they are a reference of something to something.

“a totality of useful things is always already discovered before the individual useful thing.”

staring at a hammer...staring at it's shape, color, texture...de-worlds it. Using it, on the hand, means the hammer is in the “in-order-to” relationship. The in-order-to is our original relationship to things. Theoretical analysis causes us to step out of the very world that the analysis intended to discover.

When we use things, we are subordinate to the in-order-to. Gaining an awareness of this fact, of these use-value reference systems, h defines as circumspection.

The things in use value systems are characterized by “handiness” and this, then, is the definition of beings as they are “in themselves”. Handiness refers to things in their use value/use system state.

Dasein begins to sense things in their objective presence...as mere things...only when their use value breaks down. (the hammer breaks, and is then just a lump...electricity goes off, the computer is a heap of plastic and wires). If an item doesn't work (defined as conspicuousness) or a needed item is missing (obtrusiveness) or if a thing is in the way of a task or disruptive in some way (obstinancy), then we see things as an objective presence (the broken hammer, dead computer)...that is, we see a thing outside of its use-value system.

This disruption is significant because it makes us conscious of the use-value systems that we live in. it makes us conscious of that system of references of things that dasein is usually absorbed in.

a disruption doesn't make us discover the reference world...it makes us realize that we have always, already been in it and that, in a moment of disruption, we are momentarily outside of it (this is what he later develops into the discussion on boredom and anxiety).

Or, to put it differently: in stuff disruption, we don't discover the world/matrix...we discover that it has already been discovered by us in our using of the things...we sense our previous absorption in the use-value reference system. (overview 69, 70)

world- not the things around us. In fact, when we notice things individually, it means the world is disrupted (when things break, go missing, etc). World is the system of references in which things are absorbed, inconspicuous...and dasein, in taking care, using those things, is absorbed in the system as well.

Traditional philosophy always tried to discover the world by focusing on the attributes of things...for h, the moment you do this you lose the world. The in-itself cannot be found in a solitary things, but only through an understanding of the phenomenon of “world”, i.e. the use/reference system (71)

“taking care of things always already occurs on the basis of a familiarity with the world. In this familiarity dasein can lose itself in what it encounters within the world and be numbed by it.”

discussion of references, signs begins on 71

signs indicate. Indicating is a type of referring. To refer means to relate (and so on, this part makes my head hurt).

One aspect of signs (like directional arrows on a car) is that they hint at the spatial nature of things in the relational systems. Signs enable orientation, giving a view of the spatial qualities of the world.

By explicitly referring to things, signs provide hints to dasein about the reference systems it lives within; the nature of the “world” can be glimpsed in signs (and spatiality) (77).

“signs are something ontically at hand which, as this definite useful thing, functions at the same time as something which indicates the ontological structure of handiness, referential totality and worldliness.”

signs- ontic
reference- ontological, part of the fundamental structure of the in-order-to systems.

On relevance:

the nature of beings at hand is reference. Things “refer to”, within their use-systems. They are relevant “together with” something else. Reference then leads us to the fundamental being of inner-worldly beings...that is, relevance. “to be relevant means to let something be together with something else.”

relevance points to the “what-for” of dasein. The relevance of things in their totality is the what-for. Dasein is not merely one of the things in the use-systems...it is what these systems point back to. That is, things in their relevance point to existence, to the fact that existence is what binds them into the what-for totality.

The relationship between the structures within these world totalities is a relationship of “signifying”. The signifying unites these various components into a “primordial totality”(81).

The signifying (interlocking) is what gives dasein it's pre-understanding of its own being-in-the-world.

(signification defined as significance)

conclusion- “dasein always means that a context of things at hand is already essentially discovered with its being. In that it is, dasein has always already referred itself to an encounter with the world.”

this is basically his critique and counter-point to descartes. It's not “i think therefore I am”, it's “i go about my day, using things that interlock into a referential totality that form a world that refers back to the organizing self that I am.”

In later sections of part 2, H switches to analysis of Descartes' view of ontology. Descartes defines world and being, basically, as attributes (he uses the term "extension"). And for him, math is the best way to pin down the nature of attributes. As mentioned, H sees this as skipping over the fundamental nature of Dasein and world; it's a leap into subject object thinking.

One positive in Descartes' analysis: he does skip over the world, but by defining being as "extension", he does get close to the existential concept of spatiality...that is, the interconnectedness of things oriented around Dasein...this, then, H plans to salvage and develop.

The use-systems arrange things as a result of their handiness. Things aren't just "there", they are in particular places and distributed according to their use-value within a referential totality.

Where they are, in this totality, is called "nearness". And the nearness of things divides into "regions". (95)

Things in their nearness divide into regions which interlock into the aroundness of Dasein's world. Conversely, these regions, spaces, determine the place of things, based on their use value.

What this means is that we do not live in consistent, regular math-like units of space. We live in a space arranged and ordered by these use-value systems, these referential networks of handiness. Dasein's spatiality is given the name of "de-distancing".

De-distancing is not a categorical. It is not a measure of space units. It is an existential. It is a relational organizing of space (as in, chair not "touching" the wall, since "touching" is a relational concept of Dasein).

Handiness, care, is our relationship to things; de-distancing is our relationship to space, the way spaces are grouped into use-categories and arranged.

You can measure a short and long path. But the short path on a day with bad weather can feel much longer than the long path in nice weather. When we notice things like this, we get glimpses of de-distancing, of existential spatiality. Again, we noticed that our world refers back to us. "Dasein is spatial in the manner of de-distancing."

Example (99): the glasses on a person's nose are generally "invisible", further from the person than a conspicuous object across the room. De-distancing is the lived spatiality of a person.

As the glasses example indicates, things in their nearness and/or familiarity can become inconspicuous. Our use of things de-distances them.

H adds that these spaces, arranged by handiness, nearness and de-distancing, naturally form into an orientation towards the world, that is directionality. Directionality is part of the structure of the world; overview 102.

end part 3

part IV

begins with the question, "What is the self; the I?"

Is it simply the I we discover when we reflect? H asks, "Who is it who is in the everydayness of Dasein?"

We find in our interactions with world the being of Mitda-sein. Mitda-sein = others. Things, in their reference systems, reference others. Things made, for example imply...the maker, the user, etc...others, along with Dasein, are interlocked into the references.

We are not with people in the same way that we are with things. The others are "those from whom one mostly does not distinguish oneself." (111, laying groundwork for "they self"). We are amongst things, next to them, but we are "with" people. "Being-in is being-with others."

Traditional philosophy tries to find "self" by looking inward, at an isolated "I". H says the opposite is the correct approach- we find our self in what we do, need, etc, in our entanglement with the world. The self  is initially when it is in the world, in its habits and behaviors and this also means our self is first in the world, with others.

Self is not a solitary self that then enters the world; the "I" is already "over there", interlocked with the referential totality of things and people.

"taking care" is the nature of our being with things- but "concerned" is our attitude towards self and others.

Since Dasein is initially entangled in the world and with others, Dasein is not initially itself. Who is it, then? The they. (118)

In being-with-one-another, Dasein is one of the others. We are absorbed in the they.

Others function as life metrics. We see we are like or unlike others; we see we are doing worse or better, etc. The various distances we feel in relation to others, H calls this "distantiality". It's one of the primary ways we are absorbed in the they (126, 127)

By comparing ourselves to one another, we naturally tend towards states of "averageness". Our concerns that arise when we compare ourselves lead to similar behaviors, to avoidance of novelty, and so on. The they generates averageness. All human possibilities experience a "levelling down".

All together these factors (distantiality, averageness, levelling down) create "publicness". Publicness controls the interpretive framework of Dasein, limits its possibilities of being.

"Everyone is the other and no one is himself. The they, which supplies the answer to the who of everyday Dasein, is the nobody to whom everyday Dasein has always already surrendered itself in its being-among-one-another."

By establishing limits and metrics and boundaries, the they "disburdens" Dasein, makes life choices for it. This providing of all choices, H calls an "accomodating" of Dasein; life is made easier, more shallow, less complex.

The self of everyday Dasein is the they-self. Initially, "I" am not...I am others.

part V

With world and who described in some detail, H now focuses on being-in. This, in turn, will tell us more about the nature of care.

Dasein always finds itself in a "there"; an opening is disclosed. "Dasein is its disclosure."

dis-close: opposite of close, an opening, which connects to the Greek concept of "alethia", truth as opening, clearing, light.

this section = analysis of "there" and what "there" means in its everyday state; overview 126.

Ways to be "there":

1. attunement
2. understanding.

Once analyzed, H will describe a fundamental mode of "there", entanglement.

Attunement = mood; the ebb and flow of day to day moods. Mood discloses one's self. Seeking moods that cover up the burden of selfhood (distraction, for example) points to 1. the desirability of remaining concealed and therefore 2. your individual self. "In the evasion itself there is something disclosed." (127)

When mood discloses a self disconnected from absorption in the world, we experiences thrownness; Dasein is thrown into its there. We are delivered over to ourselves. (synopsis 128)

(concept of movement...existential movement...is important, and will continue to be developed over next few sections; throwness is first example of self as movement; later you get "plunge", "eddying", etc; keep these concepts connected in terms of awareness of self, angst, etc)

We don't find self by looking for self. We find it by fleeing from it. Our day to day attunement steers us away from, and therefore reveals, itself.

"Attunement discloses Dasein in its thrownness, initially and for the most part in the mode of an evasive turning away."

Mood is not an inner psychological state that shapes our view of self and world. "Mood assails. It comes neither from 'without' nor from 'within' but rises from being-in-the-world itself as a mode of that being." (that is, as a mode of being-in-the-world; mood is what discloses being-in-the-world as a whole).

Our navigating the things of the world in their use-contexts, reference systems, is made possible via attunement. Attunement is our meshing with those contexts, as evidenced by the reaction to things that break; they briefly kick us out of those use-systems and our customary "taking care". (129) (particularly true today with tech, when tech breaks)

Next bit: Understanding is the being of attunement.

Understanding is what lays the groundwork for Dasein's potentiality of being, of "possibility". It's sort of the point of contact with Dasein's field of possibility in any given moment.

Understanding has the character of "project". It connects Dasein to the totality of things, the use-totalities, in a mode that unlocks their possibilities. (H's verb for project = projecting)

"As projecting, understanding is the mode of being of Dasein in which it is its possibilities as possibilities."

Understanding can be authentic- aware of its absorption in and ownership of possibilities- or inauthentic (what Sartre would call "bad faith")

The seeing of things in their potentiality, H terms "sight". The seeing of self as potentiality = "transparency". Dasein is its "there." Thrown, it projects itself into its there. Being-in-the-world = thrown-projecting (this section is super jargony; focus more on the role of mood and attunement...concealing of self, projecting  into possibilities of self and activities, and the role those projects have in organizing the world into use-contexts; and the fact that these projects conceal self, in publicness, but in doing so also hint at the authentic self being concealed).

Projecting = not just using the reference-systems but organizing them, unlocking their possibilities

As understanding, Dasein projects itself upon its possibilities. The development of projecting is "interpretation". Interpretation is the development of possibilities projected in understanding.

"In interpretation, understanding does not become something different, but rather itself." (138)

Interpretation is our knowing "what something is for". Dasein is interpretive. We don't see things "as they are", but in their interpretive frameworks.

Again, all of this is hinting at things missed, skipped over, in subject/object thinking. He's offering counter-explanations for the usual responses of traditional philosophy. The question of how we perceive things- in thought? by ascertaining universal attributes? in senses? H breaks from all of this, says we first see things via the interpretive navigating of referential totalities. (and in doing so begins to create the bridge from phenomenology to existentialism)

Interpretation does not throw a layer of meaning over objectively present things. Rather, "what is encountered in the world is always, already in a relevance which is disclosed in the understanding of world, a relevance which is made explicit through interpretation."

Interpretation does not generate connections; we already are in-the-world. It operates instead on a "fore-having". Things interpreted are understood beforehand. How is this possible? H breaks down the structure of fore-having on 140, 141.

This fore-having...the fact that we don't walk into a room and have to pause, identify each object, then puzzle out how to do things, use things...the fact that we already always are in projects, so familiar with objects that they become invisible to us...this fore-having is what makes "meaning".

Meaning is the fore-having structures that make things intelligible for interpretation. (point here is just to lay down jargon and groundwork for how Dasein is, in it's everydayness...meaning built upon fore-having, fore-having built upon interpretation, interpretation built upon understanding, understanding guided by attunement, attunement connecting self to world in projecting, etc)

Expression of meaning happens with "statements", language, discourse and so on; this section breaks down what these mean, and digs into the original Greek conception. Again, the point is to develop concept of understanding and attunement and look at how they operate in day to day life; statement, discourse and such being what these factors look like as we interact with others and make sense of our world.

Statement is pointing out...it establishes a predicate of what is stated, and at the same time it is a communication. In indicates a thing or being in the form of a communication. "Statement is a pointing out which communicates and defines".

H focuses on these elements of statement to demonstrate that statement is a modification of interpretation. Interpretation is how we make sense of the referential totalities that we navigate, use...and statement is a way to narrow down the totality, to focus only on a particular being, or whatever is being indicated in the statement.

"This levelling down of the primordial 'as' of circumspect interpretation to the 'as' of the determination of objective presence is the speciality of statement".

Continues to develop vocabulary for how we communicate, the existential structures of understanding as it exists in daily life...discourse "is the articulation of intelligibility", and therefore "lies at the basis of interpretation and statement". Our ability to make sense of being-in-the-world and articulate that meaning is "discourse." H uses this understanding of discourse and it's existential nature to critique language studies of the time, basically repeating his critique of traditional ontology in a different context. In breaking language down, you skip over it's nature.

Goes more and more specific with meaning, understanding and how it is filtered through discourse.

Most common, original, every day state of Dasein's language is "idle talk". Idle talk is language absorbed in publicness, in they self. Idle talk is Dasein "uprooted"...it is cut off from its self, kept in a sort of existential suspension.

In its they state, Dasein flees from itself...this flight requires an endless progression of input from publicness. What it needs is novel experiences, topics, projects, etc...so that it can remain in a state of detachment from the sting of selfhood. This detachment, H terms "not-staying"...and the mindset of seeking distraction is "curiosity". Curiosity is the guiding interest in new topics, projects...it is how we achieve "not-staying".

"In not-staying, curiosity makes sure of the constant possibility of distraction. It has nothing to do with contemplation...it has no interest in wondering...Rather, it makes sure of knowing, but just in order to have known." i.e., it only seeks short term, superficial involvement with any particular topic or project.

"The two factors constitutive for curiosity, not-staying ...and distraction by new possibilities, are the basis of the third essential characteristic of this phenomenon, which we call never dwelling anywhere. Curiosity is everywhere and nowhere."

(more true today, with internet, all topics being superficially discussed by all people, in assembly line fashion; topics drifting by, all people feeling qualified to make comments on all topics...there is a sort of everywhere/nowhere quality to it)

Idle talk drives curiosity...curiosity drives idle talk.

This results in: "ambiguity".

All they-generated information is just stretched out, made easy to discuss, have opinions about, made easy to pass over superficially before moving on to the next vague topic. Reality, the world, becomes ambiguous.

"When in everyday being with one another, we encounter things that are accessible to everybody and about which everybody can say everything, we can soon no longer decide what is disclosed in genuine understanding and what is not. This ambiguity extends not only to the world, but likewise to being-with-one-another as such, even to the being of Dasein towards itself."

This ambiguity leads to discomfort...we sense the underlying complexity of existence, but do not understand it and flee from it, into the comfort of publicness. Which in turn fuels the ambiguity and unease.

"Everyone keeps track of one another...Being-with-one-another in the they is not at all a self-contained, indifferent side-by-sideness, but a tense, ambiguous keeping track of each other, a secretive, reciprocal listening-in. Under the mask of the for-one-another, the against-one-another is at play."

obviously this is one of my favorite sections in the book.

Idle talk + curiosity + ambiguity = entanglement. Entanglement is the every day being of dasein. It is absorption in the world it takes care of, predicated on all of the various structures of attunement and understanding.

For the they reasons just described, this every day being of Dasein is one where it is detached from itself.

This absorption in the they world, Dasein's initial and most common state = "falling prey"

"Falling prey to the 'world' means being absorbed in being-with-one-another as it is guided by idle talk, curiosity and ambiguity."

Falling away is a falling away from self. summary 165

Being-in-the-world is "tempting". Dasein, in engaging with curiosity and they self, gives in to the "temptation" of falling prey.

The comforts of theyness, of publicness...the vague sense of having knowledge of most subjects, the absorption in idle talk, and so on...these comforts "tranquilize" Dasein.

(This is a key moment, as it lays the groundwork for alienation, which he will later develop into angst.)

This tranquilization is not a passive state...it is a comforting mode of being that one has to constantly work to maintain. This requires "busyness", constantly immersing in the stream of distractions and various they activities.

This constant temptation, and constant seeking out of tranquil theyness...the sense that one must remains always busy...it "aggravates entanglement".

"Entangled being-in-the-world is not only tempting and tranquilizing, it is alienating." This causes Dasein to sometimes leave its entanglement with the world, and become entangled in itself. "self-entangling"

These factors all characterize the process of falling prey. Falling prey is a movement...movement towards the they, absorption into the world and publicness; alienation pulls it out of this world, sends Dasein into itself, which in turn fuels the need for distraction, busyness.

"We call this kind of 'movement' of Dasein in its own being the plunge."

The plunge is falling out of the they world. The impulse to flee self, correct the plunge, and hover forever in theyness...this H calls "eddying", just sort of remaining stuck in this middle ground of vague, ill defined selfness.

conclusion: Tempted, tranquilized, pulled into entanglement with the they world; meanwhile, this restless push for constant tranquility fuels anxiety, which drives Dasein into itself...and this move toward self-entanglement is called "the plunge." The anxiety reveals self...and eddying is the always needful effort to return into theyness.

end part V

Part VI

summary thus far: “Being-in-the-world is always already entangled. The average everydayness of Dasein can thus be determined as entangled-disclosed, thrown-projecting being-in-the-world which is concerned with its ownmost potentiality in its being together with the “world” and in being-with with the others.” 170

We know that dasein is disclosed to itself but remains in various states of concealment. H asks: what might allow dasein full disclosure of self? The answer: angst.

Angst is what reveals to us the totality of existence (care). Dasein is care. Angst is the access point for understanding this fact.

Continues to examine flight from self into theyness; H emphasizes that flight from self reveals self. “But in turning away from it, it is 'there', disclosed.”

With angst, Dasein feels the sting of self. It turns away from self. Fear is what happens when we fear inner worldly things. Angst is what happens when we fear self, feel that sting of consciousness. It is a “turning away” from self.

Since angst is not a reaction to a particular thing “what angst is about is completely indefinite”. The world in moments like this loses its usual ability to provide us with a point of contact with useful things and contexts. We are in a moment of angst, we have a free-floating fear of something, and the thing we fear is literally none of the world things, none of the things around us. The world, then, loses its relevance, its absorbing qualities that we are usually engaged in. “It collapses”.

“The fact that what is threatening is nowhere characterizes what Angst is about. Angst 'does not know' what it is about which it is anxious”...what is threatening “is so near that it is oppressive and stifles one's breath- and yet it is nowhere.”

The uncomfortable thing that is causing this fear is not a thing in the world, so that in this moment the world is empty. Signification systems drop away...the insignificance of the world is oppressive. Put another way: not relevant in that moment, the world becomes nothing...its nothingness becomes manifest.

“that about which angst is anxious is being-in-the-world”...with the world falling away in moments of angst, what is also being lost is the interpretations and understandings that the world usually provides us; theyness, the self caught up in the world, that is lost for a moment. Angst takes away our habitual falling prey.

“Angst individuates Dasein”...we are cut off from possibilities that are usually controlled by habitual theyness. We are basically face to face with our own authentic possibility state...we are this individual self, in a state of perpetual possibility, no longer coasting through tranquilized, easy group think states we are accustomed to. “Angst discloses dasein as being-possible.”

The Nothing.

Angst is characterized by “uncanniness”. “Here the peculiar indefiniteness of that which dasein finds itself involved in with Angst initially finds expression: the nothing and the nowhere.” The losing of the world, in these moments, leaves us nowhere, as Angst nullifies the comfort of falling prey.

Tranquil they self is entangled flight from the uncanny not-being-home of Dasein. Meaning, uncanniness precedes tranquility. That is, tranquility is predicated on a need to flee ourselves. 177

Angst discloses the “world” that one is always “in” emptied of its meaning systems. Dasein, kicked out of its they self, discovers the nature of its “being-in”, its world; we discover that the world is always, already, this empty field of possibility. It is nothingness.

The tranquility of entanglement - “being at home”
The individuated “nothing” world of Angst = “not being at home”, uncanniness.

H angst summary on 178

Being-in-the-world does not mean a world of stuff is welded to an existence. Rather, existence is a whole, a unity, with the world. Being-ahead-of-itself = this unity. H is developing the critique of traditional philosophy and the idea that a subject goes out towards objects...the inside vs. outside thinking. He's establishing that existence is a self/world unity; that is, world is a structure of existence. Being-ahead-of-itself is another way of phrasing this, since the world is our template for possibilities of our being...we are ahead of ourselves, already in these possibilities.

“More completely formulated, being-ahead-of-itself means being-ahead-of-itself-in-already-being-in-a-world.”

And when you bundle all of these structures together, all of the structures of existence, you have care. Care is the being of dasein. All of these descriptions are happening as a way of filling out the structures of care. Care is prior to all of these structures, everything else is predicated on care...and H goes into more detail demonstrating this fact, explaining why this and that facet of life is an extension of care (starting on 184)

Theyness mutes possibilities of self, and this is how we begin and generally live life: entangled, suppressed by they interpretations. Point is that care is initially entangled, so added to his formulation of care is being-together-with. It then becomes “being-ahead-of-itself-in-already-being-in-as-being-together-with.” Which is fun.

On 183, H first begins to establish that existence, and all of its bundled structures...is time. Ultimately, you can formulate, in an extremely crude way, the conclusion of the book as “Existence is time”, and he connects all of these descriptions so far with time in section 42. he relates an ancient Greek parable that weaves all of this together as a way to close out division one, set up division two.

Our “temporal sojourn in the world” rules and characterizes what existence is, although he has yet to formulate why this is so. That's what division two is for.

Before moving on, H feels compelled to deal with two questions that generally pop up in traditional philosophy. What is reality? What is truth?

H is not really interested in these questions, as he feels that, in answering them, we lapse into subect/object thinking and completely miss the actual modes of existence that tell us what we need to know about reality and truth. The remainder of division one is quickly looking at these questions and establishing why they are not really a barrier for his project here. The writings on truth are particularly valuable as they lay down the groundwork for his later writing...the defintion of life as “disclosedness”, “opening”...the Greek concept of alethia...this will all be developed in his later works, even though he only briefly touches up on it here.

Reality.

192, most conceptions of reality lapse into realism or idealism. What we know of the world comes from the things of the world, or in our ability to think and examine concepts. Realism, idealism.

H on idealism: it “constructs the interpretation of reality in a vacuum.” It sets aside beings of the world, does not address the fact that dasein, factically, is a being in the world, so that at its base, idealism is just turning a blind eye to the very question it is trying to answer.

H feels Dilthey offered a useful concept in his description of reality...Dilthey stated that “the real” offers resistance...reality is resistance. We will, we strive, we engage in projects- we find things not currently in the state we prefer for life, so we alter reality, work against the resistances to shape it to our liking...we push and navigate and so on, and what H finds within Dilthey's concept of resistance is the seeds of “disclosedness”. To navigate this reality, we must first have an understanding of it. We see what it is, since we feel its resistance to our will...and this means we have some grasp of world, some point of contact with it; we don't need to “discover” it. We always, already are in it, navigating it.

Dilthey's “resistance” is H's “disclosed being-in-the-world”.

In terms of “what is reality”, this is one of the few ways H finds to make the question interesting for himself; for the most part, realism goes to innerworldly things and sets aside the being that discloses those things in the first place. And this is what H wants to return to...the being that discloses innerworldy beings. He feels like this disclosure of world that is given to existence precedes all specific things that the disclosure can show us...so we should get sidetracked by what is disclosed; philosophy needs to zero in on existence and its nature as care, the disclosure that is already-in, together-with, etc.

Put another way: care precedes the concept of reality. The “real” and questions relating to it only occur after being-in-the-world.

Truth.

“From time immemorial, philosophy has associated truth with being.” H proceeds to outline how he will look at this...begins sorting through traditional definitions, leading up to his own framing of it. Outline of this chapter 197

Traditional concept of truth focuses on judgment. Truth is located in judgment. More specifically, truth is located in the “agreement” between judgment and its object. Agreement = correspondence.

H points out that correspondence requires a relation. Truth is a relation. Gives useful example 200.

We express our judgment in statements. Statements and judgment, then, orient us to things and things demonstrate the validity of our knowledge. “To say that a statement is true means that it discovers the beings in themselves. The being true (truth) of the statement must be understood as discovering.”

For H, Truth is not agreement between subject and object. More fundamentally, it is discovering a being in itself.

(Humorously, discussing lazy philosophy, H warns, “we must guard against uninhibited word mysticism”. This is fun.)

Once you have truth as discovery, you can then connect it with the preceding descriptions of existence as care; as disclosedness, opening. “In that dasein essentially is its disclosedness, and, as disclosed, discloses and discovers, it is essentially 'true'. Dasein is 'in the truth'.”

Truth is of the nature of dasein...but being born into theyness and false interpretations of self and world, truth can also be untruth. Both are of the nature of dasein.

Conclusion: “The statement is not the primary locus of truth, but the other way around.” Truth, being our existence as disclosedness of world, makes statements/judgments, etc, possible. Truth is not accurate beliefs, statements...it is discovery.

Example: “Before Newton's laws were discovered, they were not 'true'...The laws became true through Newton, through them beings in themselves became accessible for dasein. With the discoveredness of beings, they show themselves precisely as the beings that previously were. To discover in this way is the kind of being of 'truth'.”

It's not creating truth, it's discovering already-existing things as they are, at which point they join the being-in-the-world of dasein.

This ending of division one, focusing on traditional questions and why traditional answers have failed...and their illuminating of H's description of dasein as care...raises questions that set up division two. That list of questions 211.

“What does it mean that being 'is', where being is, after all, supposed to be distinguished from all beings?”

“The answer to the question of the meaning of being is still lacking”

end part VI.

end division 1.