Re: the subject/object dichotomy

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Greig <rdc41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 18 May 1999 22:22
Subject: Re: the subject/object dichotomy


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony Crifasi <crifasi@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: 17 May 1999 21:45
>Subject: the subject/object dichotomy
>
>
>Traditionally, it was assumed that we discover beings most
>essentially while we are thinking about them or oberving them. For
>example, upon analysis we may discover beings as material
>objects made of atoms, and upon  further analysis, we may
>discover beings (as you said) as mere appearances in the mind.
>Thus, it  was assumed that this is what beings fundamentally are,
>because only when  we conceptually analyze them and observe
>them scientifically do we truly discover what they really are.
>Heidegger turned this on its head by saying that it is when we are
>NOT thinking about beings or observing them (ie, when we are
>dealing with them or "absorbed" with them) that we discover  them
>most essentially. So if  Heidegger is right, then he escapes the
>pitfalls of the subject/object dichotomy, since the entire
>presentation of  beings as objects appearing to a subject or as
>material objects made of atoms (or as individual substances for
>that matter) depends upon conceptual analysis of some kind.
>Rather, they are more fundamentally the way they appear when we
>are dealing with them without thinking about them or observing
>them - as equipment good for doing.
>
>Anthony Crifasi
>
>Thank you for this. However I am still not clear :).
>
>What you seem to be saying is that it is when we are dealing with equipment
>as "ready-to-hand" (Zuhanden) that we discover it most essentially. However
>it appears to me that equipment is only "ready-to-hand" when there is a
>Dasein to deal with it. If the world was without Dasein there would still
be
>equipment but it would only be as "present-at-hand" (Vorhanden) things.
>Therefore it still needs a subject to reveal these bits of equipment or
>entities as Zuhanden and therefore there is still a subject/ object
>dichotomy.
>I suspect there is some flaw in this argument and I would be grateful if
>anyone could show me what it is.
>
>Edward
>
>



     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---