Posted by Sean on November 19, 19102 at 10:53:15:
In Reply to: Re: art and truth posted by todd on August 10, 19101 at 16:41:17:
Well, I'm no huge expert either, and I didn't read more than a paragraph of Art. What I have done is read the first part of Time and Being rather extensively, and plan to some time in the near future read the second part, as soon as I get a firm grip on Part one.
I can't resist commenting on the part where you say, "you know you exist, it doesnt need any further proof, go away and do some existing". I get the impression that, when Heidegger talks about beings and the world, he understands that you need to go out and exist. You can't have a relationship with the world without going out and doing some existing, and without relating to the world, you can't ask about your own existence, and, if you can't ask about your own existence, you lose dasein. If Being can't relate to Being, you sort of fall into a Tree falling in a forest question.
There's a neat little dialog in The Age of Reason, by Sartre, where Mathieu's girlfriend pins him against the wall. She points out that he's so busy trying to preserve his liberty by not defining himself that he doesn't ever really do anything. It's sort of the same question. If I define who I am, I can't "be anything other than me" right now. But staying open to everything means not doing anything at all, because as soon as you go out and exist, you shut out all other possibilities. She goes father than that, and suggests that it's not really about trying to stay free, it's just a way to justify a vice that he has. Then she tells him to go get a life.
After all, why bother dasein if it stops you from living and existing? If you can't exist because you're trying to stay open, why ask about existence?
By the way, the refference to Dave Matthew's "Dancing Nancies" was intentional. I find it hits the spot when thinking about dasein.
Sean