Recent years have seen an accentuation in claims that early Heideggerian works are infected with totalitarian ideas that came to full realisation in the early 1930s. In challenging this claim, I suggest that the trajectory from Geschichtlichkeit and Mitsein in Being and Time to Heidegger’s later lamentable political involvements is both complicated and tenuous. After first defending this stance with reference to the account of Schuld in Being and Time, I draw substantively on the work of Jean-Luc Nancy in (...) arguing that Heidegger’s later political thought amounts to a perversion of his earlier admittedly under-developed accounts of Geschichtlichkeit and Mitsein. Further, with Nancy, I suggest there is much to be learned here more generally—both by Heidegger’s great insights and great failures—concerning the dialectic of self and community. (shrink)

In his essay “Peter’s Denial,” René Girard draws a parallel between mimesis and Martin Heidegger’s concept of being-with. In this essay I explore this parallel through a third, intermediate term—addiction—on the assumption that living in a world governed by mimesis, according to Girard, and living in the modus of Mitsein, according to Heidegger, can both be characterized as a kind of addiction. The clarification of the parallel between mimesis and Mitsein through this intermediate term may contribute to a (...) better understanding of a central concept of Heidegger’s philosophy and, at the same time, bring into view the philosophical dimension of Girard’s mimetic theory. In my conclusion I propose Levinas’s ethical approach as a possible cure to the addiction to mimesis and being-with. (shrink)

La pregunta por la posible complementariedad entre la noción de trasfondo (Background) de Charles Taylor y el Mitsein (coestar) heideggeriano busca indagar no solo sobre la posibilidad de una coherencia entre dos nociones de autoría diversa, sino constatar si la noción de trasfondo de Taylor contiene en sí misma una dimensión ontológica hacia el otro que le pertenece en propiedad. Se persigue mostrar cómo el mundo heideggeriano es, para Taylor, perfectamente coherente con el trasfondo heideggeriano y cómo el (...) class='Hi'>Mitsein se encuentra en una forma no explícita en la filosofía del canadiense. (shrink)

This article traces the development of how the early Heidegger tried to integrate the structures of social life into phenomenological ontology. Firstly, I argue that Heidegger's analysis of the three elements of the lifeworld—the with-world (Mitwelt), the environing world (Umwelt), and the self-world (Selbstwelt)—is ambiguous, because it shifts between defining sociality as a domain of entities and a mode of appearance. This is untenable because the social as a mode of appearance constantly overflows the definition as a domain by implicating (...) social structures in phenomenological explications of entities that, formally, belong to other domains. Secondly, I argue that Heidegger realized this and subsequently changed his terminology from Mitwelt to Mitsein in order to avoid confusing the mode of appearance with the innerworldly entities. The systematic consequence of this line of argument is that the object of social ontology must be the world as such rather than a particular domain. Lastly, I respond to the common worry that this position is unable to explain the significance of interpersonal encounters by arguing that the world not only makes the appearance of others possible but also that the world is itself at stake in these encounters. (shrink)

Written by one of the pre-eminent interpreters of Heidegger, this book is an important statement about the basis of human sociability that is a major contribution to the continuing debates about Heidegger in particular, and ethics in general. Existential philosophy is often thought to promote moral nihilism in which everything is permitted. This book demonstrates that, in the case of Martin Heidegger, any such accusation is unjust. On the contrary, Heidegger thought seriously about the implications of human co-existence, and this (...) book shows that conceptions of trust and responsibility that lie at the very heart of morality are to be found in the sketch of Mitsein - our being together with one another in the world - offered in Being and Time. That Heidegger never developed these conceptions may explain why they have been overlooked, but renders them no less important for that. (shrink)

Relational structure is a primitive notion of Heidegger’s Dasein. By analyzing the concept of pros-ti as it emerges from the Heidegger’s 1924 course dedicated to Plato’s Sophist, I outline the Platonic and Aristotelic roots of Heideggerian Mitsein. Arguably the Mitsein makes explicit the instances of the pros ti — in other words, the instances of Aristotle’s concept of relatedness/intentionality that Heidegger ascribes to Plato’s heteron — but giving them an existential value, having Heidegger pursued the shift from realism (...) to phenomenologyexistentialism. The article concludes by emphasizing the relevance of these themes for social ontology. (shrink)

Inwiefern kann Heidegger in Sein und Zeit seinem Anspruch gerecht werden, die Bewusstseinsphilosophie zu überwinden? 'Dasein' soll als Konzept den Begriff des Subjekts nicht ersetzen, sondern vielmehr die Subjekt-Objekt-Spaltung als solche unterlaufen. So bringt 'In-der-Welt-sein' paradigmatisch zum Ausdruck, dass 'Dasein' immer schon handelnd bei seiner Welt ist und alle epistemologische Reflexion demgegenüber sekundär. Trotzdem kann die Fundamentalontologie als eine Form von Transzendentalphilosophie gedeutet werden. Denn den Anderen als mir äußerlichen, nicht von mir konstituierten zu denken, ist von entscheidender Bedeutung für (...) besagte Intention Heideggers. Dass es ihm nicht gelingt, diese Unabhängigkeit konzeptionell zu fassen, spiegelt sich in den immanenten Problemen der Mitseinsanalyse, die selbst als - explizit im Sinne Kants - transzendentalphilosophische deutbar sind. (shrink)

This paper discusses Hannah Arendt’s model of the Jewish pariah, developed in her study of Jewish assimilation. The argument is that Arendt’s model represents her early efforts to move beyond Martin Heidegger’s philosophy. The paper focuses on Arendt’s concept of a conscious pariah as a model for political resistance, independence, and agency. It shows how Arendt infused elements of Heidegger’s philosophy into her early vision of Jewish politics, while also transcending the limits of Heidegger’s ontological project with her political vision. (...) The paper suggests that Arendt’s book on Rahel Varnhagen shares similarities with Heidegger’s work on Mitsein in Being and Time, while her 1944 model of the conscious pariah, especially the focus on the pariah as a rebel, illustrates her concerns with Heidegger’s work on the Volk. (shrink)

In this article, I address the intricacies of Heidegger's existential notion of Mitsein, and expound a different way of understanding the relevant issue in light of a reinterpretation of Zhuangzi's fish story. I show that Heidegger's account of Mitsein is ultimately situated within the limit of Dasein's structural components. What is more problematic is his conception of the connection between Dasein and others as disengaged. Then I explicate a Zhuangzian idea of what I call Mitzutun, literally meaning doing (...) something with. I argue that the “with” of the Zhuangzian Mitzutun is lived out by human beings and non-human beings in the variegated forms of life. (shrink)

O autor, em uma abordagem do conjunto da obra de Rosenzweig à luz tanto dos grandes desafios filosóficos contemporâneos como da dialética entre distância e proximidade que sua específica posição possibilita, apresenta, desde a ideia geral de um pensamento que se rearticula em torno ao tema da paz, alguns dos elementos que permitem a concepção filosófica de um “pensamento pacífico”, ou “pensamento ético”, naquela obra e além dela, no sentido de uma “estética da paz”.

The main problem in making sense of Mitsein as an aspect of Dasein in Being and Time concerns the sense in which individual Dasein is an ‘I’, given that it can be either an ‘anyone-self’ or an ‘authentic self’. Though it is clear that the anyone-self relates directly to das Man, the relation of the authentic self to others is debatable. In this paper, I reexamine the relations between self and others by making sense of the referent of each (...) mode of selfhood, with special attention to the problem of explaining the relations between the two. The problem, I claim, can be solved by bringing into relief a certain conception of mereology (theory of parthood relations) that underlies Heidegger’s arguments. As I will demonstrate, Heidegger uses a mereological terminology that appropriates Husserl’s logic of parts and wholes from the Logical Investigations. In view of this, I suggest understanding individual Dasein, both qua anyone-self and qua authentic self, as a moment, i.e. a dependent part of an open-ended whole. The apparent gap between anyone-self and authentic self can be better understood as a shift of focus between two different aspects of being the same type of dependent part of a whole. (shrink)

Ce texte souhaite montrer qu’une compréhension adéquate de la notion heideggerienne de Mitsein et de ces implications pour le fondement d’une éthique herméneutique doit partir d’une analyse minutieuse des rapports herméneutiques à la tradition et à la connaissance des pratiques sociales. En ce sens, je travaille à partir de l’analyse gadamérienne du « jeu » et de la philosophie pratique. À quelles conditions une éthique herméneutique est-elle possible? Précisément à la condition de s’inscrire dans une prise en compte de (...) cette pré-compréhension des relations sociales, pré-compréhension à partir de laquelle nous envisageons toujours déjà notre devoir-être. (shrink)

McMullin argues persuasively that individualized interpersonal encounters entail the mutual recognition of the particularity of each participant’s temporalizing way of Being-in-the-world.

Frederick Olafson makes the case sensibly and eloquently that, despite Heidegger’s failed personal and political judgments, “the profoundly original constellation of ideas he introduced in Being and Time can make an important contribution to our understanding of the whole ethical side of our lives”. In particular, Olafson argues that Heidegger’s phenomenological analysis of Mitsein provides the framework for thinking about the “ground” of ontic ethical theory, rules, and prescriptions.

In Being and Time, Heidegger affirms that being-with or Mitsein is an essential constitution of Dasein but he does not submit this existential to the same rigorous analyses as other existentials. In this essay, Jean-Luc Nancy points to the different places where Heidegger erased the possibility of thinking an essential with that he himself opened. This erasure is due, according to Nancy, to the subordination of Mitsein to a thinking of the proper and the improper. The polarization of (...) Being-with between an improper face, the Anyone, and a proper one, the people, which is also, as Nancy shows, a polarization between everydayness and historicity, between a being-together in exteriority (indifference and anonymity) and a being-together in interiority (union through destiny), between a solitary dying and the sacrificial death in combat, leaves the essential with unthought. This essay shows not only the tensions that arise out of Heidegger’s own analyses of Mitsein and affect the whole of Being and Time but also underlines in the end a “shortfall in thinking” inherent not only to Heidegger’s work but, as Nancy claims, to our Western tradition, a shortfall which Nancy has attempted to remedy in his Being Singular Plural. (shrink)

In this paper I respond to the view that Heidegger is unable to account for the possibility of immediately experiencing others in their concrete particularity. Critics have argued that since Mitsein characterizes Dasein’s mode of being regardless of the presence or absence of others, Heidegger has essentially granted it the status of an a priori category. In doing so, they argue, Heidegger reduces the other to a mere interchangeable token whose uniqueness is subsumed under the generality of the established (...) category. In contrast, I argue that the Heideggerian ‘a priori’ must be understood as a living responsiveness to particularity, not a top-down imposition of abstract categoriality. The argument further shows that this responsiveness must be understood in terms of temporal particularity. The bulk of the paper then demonstrates the nature of such responsiveness when it is the temporal particularity of the other Dasein that is being encountered. I show that such encounters are a necessary condition for the possibility of world time and the worldly space of shared significance. Because my encounter with the other Dasein is a direct experience of her originary temporality—the fundamental expression of her concrete care-defined way of being—such encounters are not simple subsumptions of the other to an a priori category. They are, rather, a temporal responsiveness to the unique mode of intuitive givenness characterizing other Dasein. (shrink)

En fenomenología generalmente se habla de dos aproximaciones al abordar el fenómeno de la intersubjetividad: la aproximación cartesiana o neohegeliana ¾representada por Sartre¾; y la aproximación ontológico-social ¾representada por el Mitsein heideggeriano. Merleau-Ponty es conocido por seguir una corriente fuertemente influenciada por Heidegger, influencia que se extiende también en el área de la intersubjetividad. Pero, a pesar de la preponderancia heideggeriana, Merleau-Ponty integra aspectos importantes de la teoría intersubjetiva sartreana a su filosofía. En base a ello, cabe preguntarse, ¿cómo (...) puede Merleau-Ponty armonizar dos corrientes contrarias en el terreno de la intersubjetividad? Es el concepto de la mirada y del ser-con los que convivirán en la filosofía social merleau-pontiana de la Fenomenología de la percepción. Así, intentaremos hacer ver que la comprensión intersubjetiva de Merleau-Ponty supera la escisión entre las aproximaciones intersubjetivas de Sartre y Heidegger, ya que toma como base el Mitsein heideggeriano, pero mantiene, al mismo tiempo, el estatus conflictivo de la mirada sartreana. (shrink)

하이데거에 따르면, 세계는 현존재의 실존에 의존하여 개시되는데 현존재의 실존은 우리 자신 각자에 따라서 상이하다. 이에 대해 현존재의 각자적 실존에도 불구하고 어떻게 공동의 단일한 세계가 성립할 수 있는지 의문이 제기된다. 본고는 이러한 의문을 둘러싼 선행 연구들을 비판적으로 검토한 후, 하이데거의 1928/29년 겨울학기 강의록을 토대로 세계 개시의 각자성과 공동성을 해명하고자 한다. 하이데거는 그 강의록에서 공동 존재(Mitsein)와 진리에 관한 방대한 논의를 펼친다. 그에 따르면, 진리는 개별 현존재에 의해 사유화될 수 없도록 본질적으로 공동적이기 때문에 현존재가 접하는 진리의 공간은 다른 모든 현존재에게도 이미 개방되어 (...) 있다. 그런데 현존재 각자가 처하는 진리의 공간이 개방되어 있다는 사실은 그것을 포괄하는 공동적 개방 영역의 존립을 함축한다. 그리고 이 공동적 개방 영역이 세계에 다름 아니다. 세계는 존재론적으로 이미 공동으로 개시되어 있고 이에 근거하여 각 현존재는 자신의 인생역정과 상황 등에 따라 자신의 세계를 개시하는 것이다. (shrink)

Abstract This paper examines a convergence between Heidegger's reconceptualization of subjectivity and intersubjectivity and some recent work in feminist philosophy on relational autonomy. Both view the concept of autonomy to be misguided, given that our capacity to be self-directed is dependent upon our ability to enter into and sustain meaningful relationships. Both attempt to overturn the notion of a subject as an isolated, atomistic individual and to show that selfhood requires, and is based upon, one's relation to and dependence upon (...) others. The paper argues that Heidegger's notion of authentic Mitsein (being-with) rejects traditional notions of autonomy and subjectivity in favor of a relational model of selfhood. Ultimately, it provides a new point of entry into contemporary debates within feminist philosophy on Heidegger's thinking and defends Heidegger from certain feminist critiques. (shrink)

Abstract It is widely recognized that Heidegger's analysis of Dasein outlines a novel dissolution of the epistemological problems of modern philosophy. However it has not been fully appreciated that this analysis presupposes a conception of human beings which radically separates them from all natural, animal life. Focusing on Heidegger's analysis of Mitsein it is argued that this separation prevents Heidegger from achieving a conception of human existence which avoids the distortions of the humanist tradition against which it recoils. Against (...) Heidegger, it is argued that a philosophically satisfactory conception of human existence must be more smoothly naturalistic. (shrink)

The article analyzes the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian war in terms of a colonial seizure undertaken by a fading but aggressive Russian empire. This highly political adventure is translated into more abstract terms, that is, an irresolvable conflict between existence, which is always the experience of coexistence devoid of any essence whatsoever, and imperial expansion, which is an infinite conquest of space indifferent to all forms of life. The dualism in question is backed up by the writings of two important scholars, namely, (...) the French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy and the Russian scientist and revolutionary Peter Kropotkin. Nancy’s philosophy of being-in-common is the development of Heidegger’s concept of Mitsein, where the meaning of Mit- (co-, with) is existential and not categorical. Nancy’s philosophy challenges all forms of communal essence, of which empire is one blatant example. For Kropotkin, existence is even more all-embracing, implying a continuity of different life forms. His doctrine of mutual aid is a law that governs both society and nature, as well as evolution itself. Even morality springs from “solidarity” and the joys of social life, while sympathy or love are too narrow a basis for human ethics. Viewed from this perspective, a colonial war would not only be the greatest waste of human lives and natural resources—it would contradict the very order of things. (shrink)

Introduction: Wonder and the births of philosophy -- Socrates' small difficulty -- The wound of wonder -- The death and resurrection of Thaumazein -- The Thales dilemma -- Repetition : Martin Heidegger -- Metaphysics small difficulty -- Wonder and the first beginning -- Wonder and the other beginning -- Theaetetus redux : the ghost of the Pseudes Doxa -- Once again to the cave -- Rethinking Thaumazein -- Openness : Emmanuel Levinas -- Passivity and responsibility -- The ethics of the (...) cave -- Infinity and astonishment -- Opening out : from existent to existence -- Closing down : from existence to existent -- Locking up : totality and infinity -- The phantom of the autrement -- Awakening -- Relation : Jean-Luc Nancy -- The problem of Mitsein -- Mitsein as essential inessentiality -- The myth of essentialism -- Unworking -- Interruption -- Repetition -- Decision : Jacques Derrida -- Thaumazein, the irresponsible, and the undecidable -- Hospitality -- Undecidability revisited -- Much madness is divinest sense (or, who comes after the decision?) -- How to avoid the subject (or, that's not my hedgehog!) -- Undecidability, take three : think here of Kierkegaard -- Mysterium tremendum -- Postlude: Possibility. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss the role played by the 'categorical imperative' in the thought of Jean-Luc Nancy. I argue that, while this is a theme of major importance in Nancy's work, its overall significance is not immediately evident: on the surface, Nancy appears to be affirming the abstract exigency of the imperative while at the same time depriving it of any possible concrete force. I maintain, however, that a close reading of this theme in terms of other crucial themes (...) in Nancy's writing (namely: 'interruption' and the Heideggerian notion of 'Being-with' [Mitsein, être-avec]) reveals that Nancy's imperative does have concrete implications; indeed, it demands that we rethink the relation between responsibility and the concrete as such. Key Words: communication • community • Jacques Derrida • Martin Heidegger • imperative • Jean-Luc Nancy • responsibility. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological account of the constitution of the social world, in relation to some phenomenological contributions to the constitution of sociality found in Husserl’s students and followers, including Heidegger, Gurwitsch, Walther, Otaka, and Schutz. Heidegger is often seen as being the first to highlight explicitly human existence as Mitsein and In-der-Welt-Sein, but it is now clear from the Husserliana publications that, in his private research manuscripts especially during his Freiburg years, Husserl employs many (...) of the terms associated with Heidegger, e.g. Mitwelt, Weltlichkeit, Alltäglichkeit, Zeitlichkeit, and Geschichtlichkeit, and had detailed discussions of various forms of social constitution. It is clear that Husserl and Heidegger were exploring these themes in dialogue with one another, and that Husserl, in fact, has a rich phenomenology of sociality that is worth exploring in its own right. In this paper, I will outline some of the key aspects of Husserl’s contribution. (shrink)

This paper explores the ontology of digital information or the nature of digital-being. Even though a digital-being is not a physical thing, it has many essential features of physical things such as substantiality, extensions, and thing-totality (via Heidegger). Despite their lack of material bases, digital-beings can provide us with perceivedness or universal passive pregivenness (via Husserl). Still, a digital-being is not exactly a thing, because it does not belong to objective time and space. Due to its perfect duplicability, a digital (...) being can exist at multiple locations simultaneously – that is, it defies normal spatiotemporal constraints. With digital beings on the Internet, we can establish intercorporeal relationships. The World Wide Web opens up new possibilities of Dasein's “being-able-to-be-with-one-another” and new modes of “Being-with-others” (Mitsein). The new modes of communication based on digital-beings compel us to re-read Heidegger's basic concepts such as “Dasein as Being-in-the-world,” since Dasein becomes the “Digi-sein as Being-in-the-World-Wide-Web.” By exploring the ontological characteristics of digital-being, this paper suggests that we conceive digital-beings as res digitalis – a third entity which is located somewhere between res cogitans and res extensa. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Nancy’s work revolves around the concept of existence, modified or rather explicated as co-existence. Nancy performs the same operation on existence as Heidegger did on being-in-the-world. Indeed, just as Heidegger could say that there is not at first a subject, then a world, then the question of how the former accesses the latter, Nancy asserts, (with regard to Mitsein, being-with, sociality in the purest and most eminent sense), that there is not at first a subject, a self, then (...) another self, then the question of how one accesses the other, and how they can communicate together. We have to start from “us”, and from the sense that “we” are, i.e. from a “coexistential analytic”. (shrink)

In Being and Time, Division One, Chapter 4, Heidegger develops the structures “Being-with and Dasein-with [Mitsein and Mitdasein]” and “what we might call the ‘subject’ of everydayness—the ‘they’”. In the last section of the chapter, Section 27, Heidegger presents six characters of the ‘they’, namely, “distantiality, averageness, levelling down, publicness, the disburdening of one’s Being, and accomodation”. The meaning of the last five characters is relatively unproblematic. For instance, by “averageness” Heidegger obviously wants to indicate that the ‘they’ establishes (...) a set of behavioural patterns as normal and ‘natural’. For example, at certain junctures of their lives, individual Daseine have to choose, or are able to choose, among several options within a given set of options. However, the entire set of options as such has already been adopted by them in a self-evident way and without much thought. The ‘they’ forces this choice by suppressing other possibilities and other ways of handling given possibilities. Thus, the respective averageness results from a screening process in which the ‘they’ constantly rules out other possibilities or prevents them from emerging in the first place. Heidegger calls this “the ‘levelling down’ [Einebnung] of all possibilities of Being”. However, the first character, distantiality, seems more difficult to understand. In the English translation, Heidegger characterizes it thus. (shrink)

Esta pesquisa analisa as motivações de Heidegger para colocar em questão o sentido do ser,conforme seu projeto em _Ser e Tempo_, publicado em 1927, no qual analisa a metafísica tradicional e chega à conclusão de que a história da filosofia se deteve a refletir apenas sobre os entes, esquecendo-se do ser. No §6 de _Ser e Tempo_, Heidegger assume como tarefa a destruição da história da ontologia. Por isto, tece profundas críticas à categorização do ser na _Vorhandenheit_ grega – em (...) Platão e Aristóteles – e desarticula o racionalismo de René Descartes. Para os gregos, o ser consistia em uma essência previamente estabelecida, e caracterizava-se pela universalidade, infinitude e imutabilidade. Em Descartes, com a elaboração da _res cogitans _e _res extensa_, assujeitou-se o _Dasein_ e a dualidade entre sujeito e objeto foi fortificada. Heidegger, por seu turno, objetivou o desenvolvimento de uma filosofia que desarticulasse a metafísica proposta pela tradição (incluindo-se a corrente racionalista), e aludiu que o _Dasein_, isto é, o ente humano, pelo seu caráter ontológico, não possui essência prévia – é um ente existencial – e não é um sujeito dual – pois é um _ser-no-mundo_. Logo, não há, na natureza humana, elementos que caracterizam o ser do ente humano antes da sua existência propriamente dita, porque é apenas na existência e nos horizontes de temporalidade que o _Dasein_ se constitui e se percebe como ente aberto às possibilidades mundanas. A filosofia heideggeriana, neste sentido, pode ser relacionada com a educação, já que os diferentes saberes são construídos coletivamente, na relação ser-com (_mitsein_). Partindo da ontologia de Heidegger, a educação é uma ferramenta que possibilita o direcionamento do ser do estudante à autenticidade existencial. (shrink)

Neste ensaio abordei sobre a analítica existencial de Heidegger e de Sartre utilizando, respectivamente, a obra “Ser e Tempo” e “O Ser e o Nada”. Poderíamos pressupor que se desenvolveria um diálogo entre os pensadores, mas resguardando a própria situação hermenêutica do autor deste ensaio, o que se desenvolveu foram apontamentos acerca de flexões e inflexões a partir das propostas dos respectivos pensadores. Um ponto patente de flexão entre os pensadores é a precedência ôntico ontológica, assim como um ponto de (...) inflexão é a relação com o Outro. Contudo, há um denso e extenso debate realizado por cada um dos pensadores entre estes pontos que demarquei, que são epistemologicamente distais, perpassando a discussão acerca do cogito e do Dasein, do mundo e a situação e, somente então, do Mitsein e o Outro. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE VIRTUES OF MAN THE ANIMAL SOCIALE: AFFABILITAS AND VERITAS IN AQUINAS 1 KEVIN WHITE Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. XSTOTLE'S definition of man as the 'qlov '1ToAmKov 2the city-dwelling animal-undergoes an interesting transformation in the scholastic Latin of St. Thomas Aquinas : while the epithet of the definition occasionally appears in Aquinas's writings as transliterated, in animal politicum, or as thoroughly domesticated, in William of Moerbeke's translation (...) animal civile, his preferred version of the Aristotelian formula is animal sociale, though he sometimes says politicum et sociale, politicum vel sociale and sociale et politicum.8 For these uses of the term sociale, Aquinas is indebted not only to earlier writers of Latin but also to the genius of the language itself, whose words sociale and societas seem to have no equivalent in Aristotle's Greek. Less formal and explicit than the polis or civitas, what is meant by societas is rather the pervasive and mostly unacknowledged element within which cities are founded and continue, and which consists in the specifically human way of being together or, as Heidegger says, Mitsein. It is easy to discern in Aquinas's opposition between politicum and sociale the ancestor of our own commonplace and sharp contrast between " politics " and " so1 This paper was read in Buenos Aires on September 14, 1991, as a contribution to the sixteenth annual Semana Tomista of the Sociedad Tomista Argentina. 2 Politics I, 1, 1153a2-3. a For a survey of texts, see Edgar Scully, "The Place of the State in Society According to St. Thomas Aquinas," The Thomist 45 (1981): 407-429. The present discussion may be regarded as a gloss on the theme of this article that the social is prior to the political. 641 642 KEVIN WHITE ciety," though we should be careful not to identify our way of speaking with his: whereas we view " society " as a historical product, and so distinguish among different societies, societas for him, as for the ancient Romans, primarily connotes the universally human activity of coming together in association or alliance : it names that essential feature of human combination which is prior to institutions and to recognitions of special friendship, but which, just because it is a good of our nature, prevents human togetherness from being reduced to a bare co-presence. An illustration of the way in which Aristotle's reflections on human nature are both complicated and enriched, in Aquinas's appropriation of them, by the Roman notion of societas may be seen by comparing the differing treatments which the latter gives of the " social " virtues of truthfulness and friendliness in his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics and in the Summa Theologiae. In both texts, to be sure, these virtues pale in significance beside such impressive qualities as courage and moderation; nevertheless, a notable increase in their importance seems to occur between the commentary, where, in keeping with the order of Aristotle's text, they appear as members of a series of virtues related to merely secondary matters, and the Summa, where they are elevated to a status among the " potential parts " of the virtue of justice and are distinguished by their relevance to the needs of man the animal sociale. Let us consider this difference in presentation, bearing in mind that the two texts were composed approximately simultaneously and fairly late in Aquinas's career, that is, during his second Parisian sojourn in 1269-72." I The commentary on the Ethics introduces the fourth book of the work as a sequel to the third : after discussing courage and moderation, which concern those things by which the very life of man is preserved, Aquinas says, here, in Book IV, the Philos4 For the chronology, see James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Friar Thomas d'Aquino: His Life, Thought and -YVorks, with Corrigenda and Addenda (Washington, 198~)' pp. 361, 380. AFFABILITAS AND VERITAS IN AQUINAS 643 opher treats of other "intermedaries," namely seven virtues and the feeling of shame, which are related to " certain secondary goods or evils." 5 Among the seven virtues, the first four have to do with external things, whether the external goods of wealth and honor or the external evils... (shrink)

This essay seeks to demonstrate that the practice of phenomenological philosophy entails a practice of social and political criticism. The original demand of phenomenology is that theoretical and scientific judgments must be based upon the giving of the ‘things themselves’ in self-evident intuition. The continuous radicalization of this demand is what characterizes phenomenological philosophy and determines a practice of social and political criticism which can be traced through four phases: 1. a critique of institutions through the method of unbuilding (Abbau, (...) Destruktion, déconstruction); 2. presencing, or coming into presence, that directs one’s attention to the social movements of one’s time through which that which is pressed-out of the social form manifests itself; 3. authentic being-with (Mitsein) in which the sociality of human life is brought to the limit-condition of human life in being-toward-death; 4. nothingness, or negation, in which that which withdraws in any manifestation is incapable of a Hegelian re-immanentization as negation of the negation and thus points to an ethical dimension outside of history. (shrink)

Par quelque lieu qu'on s'y engage, s'il y a bien «quelque chose» qui insiste dans la pensée de Jean-Luc Nancy--qui en constitue le coeur, irriguant et inquiétant tout le reste de son corpus -, c'est assurément la question de la communauté--sous les divers noms qu'elle peut prendre: «partage», «nous», «comparution», « Mitsein» ou plutôt «Mitdasein», «communication» «être singulier pluriel», «être-en-commun», «avec», «coexistence», «coexposition», «monde», «liberé», «finitude», «espacement originaire» de l'existence, «écotechnie» ou «techné des corps», «toucher», etc. La question de (...) la communauté implique ou ouvre nécessairement celle du sens, étant entendu que la communauté est immédiatement enveloppée dans celle du sens, ou encore plus précisément qu'elle est immédiatement celle du sens, non pas d'un sens, mais du sens--pour autant qu'«il n'y a de sens, comme le dit Bataille, qu'à plusieurs», ce «pluriel» devant d'abord s'entendre chez Nancy comme l'avoir-lieu ou l'espacement même de l'«avec».--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Heideggers Philosophie stellt die Frage nach dem Sein. Das Sein betrifft das Seiende im Ganzen, es ist in allem Seienden durchgangig das allem Gemeine und so das Gemeinste, aber es ist zugleich auch das Leerste. Wenn Heidegger das Ganze bedenkt, bedenkt er zugleich auch das Nichts. Das Sein versteht er dementsprechend als Sein-lassen. Was aber ist der Sinn von Sein? Sowohl phanomenologisch als auch fundamentalontologisch entfaltet Heidegger eine Analytik des Daseins, in der Zeit als Horizont eines jeden Seinsverstandnisses leitend ist. (...) Von diesem Horizont her versteht sich das Dasein als Sein zum Tode und als Mitsein mit dem Anderen - bis hin zur vorausspringend-befreienden Fursorge. (shrink)

This article raises the thought of Heidegger as an alternative to the modern conceptualizations of learning that consider it as mere acquisition or construction of truth by knowledge or integration in truth through the Development of a higher level of consciousness. With Heidegger is going to be able to talk about learning how to inhabit the truth and to be inhabited by it, which implies the acquisition, the construction, the integration, but also "being-in-the-world" (Dasein) like a self before the other. (...) This implies a living idea of learning, because it is not a "representation" that is acquired or built, nor a simple "presentation" of a unitary whole in what one integrates with learning, but understands how living reality that is present and is represented Esenta, projecting itself creatively and shared in the "Being-with" (Mitsein) with tendency to the full unconcealment of the essence of Being with what to inhabit in the fullness of its meaning. (shrink)

As palavras que se seguem constituem uma tentativa de explorar os diversos sentidos que revestem a figura do «com» [mit], tal como surge configurada ao longo dos §§ 25–27 de Sein und Zeit 2 . Escutaremos atentamente aquilo que Heidegger tem a dizer a respeito da necessária determinação do ser-no-mundo [in-der-Welt-sein] como ser-com [Mitsein] e veremos, depois, em que medida a sua analítica existencial faz (ou não) depender a constituição do ser-si-mesmo [Selbstsein] da figura do outro. Por último, e (...) em jeito de conclusão, tentaremos mostrar como Heidegger articula a interrogação pela ipseidade ou pelo «quem?» [Wer?] do ser-aí quotidiano [alltägliche Dasein], com uma breve reflexão acerca da inautenticidade [Uneigentlichkeit] fáctica em que o mesmo muitas vezes parece soçobrar. Será então, estamos em crer, o momento apropriado para debatermos o significado da controversa noção heideggeriana de «eles» [das Man], aproveitando também o ensejo para lançarmos a questão relativa à responsabilidade (ética?) do Dasein. Metodologicamente, contornaremos (sempre que possível) os tradicionais comentários a respeito das infinitas modalidades alternativas de tradução do jargão filosófico heideggeriano. (shrink)

La tentative de Husserl de fonder la philosophie comme « science rigoureuse » ainsi que certains principes de sa phénoménologie ont été remis en question par plusieurs de ses successeurs. La première partie du livre qui est consacrée à la question fondamentale de l’Être présente au moyen d’une comparaison herméneutique différentes relectures de la méthode husserlienne et de l’ontologie heideggerienne, relectures qui ont contribué aux « tournants » essentiels de la philosophie phénoménologique. La deuxième partie, qui traite de l’être-avec ( (...) class='Hi'>Mitsein) et de la liberté, explore quelques approches éthiques et politiques suite à l’application de la phénoménologie dans les domaines de la communication interpersonnelle et des relations sociales. (shrink)

Bis heute hält die Politische Philosophie an dem staatsphilosophischen Diktum einer in viele Staaten zerfallenden Welt fest, die stets Formen der Ausgrenzung und der Trennung hervorbringt. Ralf Rother thematisiert hingegen die Dekonstruktion des Politischen als eine Repolitisierung des politischen Denkens, indem er sich einer Diskussion um Heideggers Terminus »Mitsein« widmet, die von Levinas, Blanchot, Nancy und Derrida initiiert wurde. Im Fokus dieser Debatte steht die Frage: Wie ist ein Zusammenleben derjenigen möglich, die unter Rückgriff auf Hobbes'sche und Schmitt'sche Positionen (...) - z.B. aufgrund unterschiedlicher Herkunft oder Feindschaft - als nicht zusammengehörig verstanden werden? (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Diacritics 31.2 (2001) 49-69 [Access article in PDF] The Communication of the Impossible Joseph Suglia Death is the death of other people, contrary to the tendency of contemporary philosophy, which is focussed on one's own solitary death. Only the former is central to the search for lost time. But the daily death—and the death of every instant—of other persons, as they withdraw into themselves, does not belong to an (...) incommunicable solitude: that is precisely what nurtures love. That is Eros in all its ontological purity, which does not require participation in a third term (tastes, common interests, a connaturality of souls)—but direct relationship with what gives itself in withholding itself, with the other qua other, with mystery. —Emmanuel Levinas, "The Other in Proust" Desire, pure impure desire, is the call to bridge the distance, to die in common through separation. —Maurice Blanchot, L'écriture du désastreOf the many challenges to the Heideggerian analytic of mortality that emerged throughout the twentieth century, none has been more groundbreaking than that of Maurice Blanchot. 1 The originality and singularity of this confrontation consists in its accent on the social character of mortality: the "experience" of death appears, in this body of discourse, as a relation to the autrui.Death is, for Heidegger, an individual engagement. 2 Heidegger absolutely excludes from his existential analytic of mortality any consideration of the Other's dying as a possible object of experience. 3 Although Sein und Zeit (1927) posits cobeing (Mitsein) as a structure essential to the constitution of selfhood, 4 death belongs exclusively to the solitary Dasein. 5 The problematic of sacrifice is irrelevant to the existential analytic, since the representative function of sacrifice does not correspond to the unrepresentable [End Page 49] character of death. 6 This is because, as Heidegger points out, even if one dies for the Other, one does not take away the Other's death. 7 As Heidegger remarks, Dasein may never experience the Other's arrival at the end (Zuendegekommensein) [SZ 239] (the true object of thanato-ontology), but only its transition into something unliving (Unlebendiges) [SZ 238]. 8 For this reason, no ontological study of death could take the death of the Other as an object of formal research.Although the "fate" of Dasein is communal (occurring within the shared context of a community), Dasein takes no part in the Other's relation to its most proper possibility: the anticipation of death, which discloses every other possibility and which makes possibility itself possible. Individuals in the community relate to their respective fates as a series of disconnected possibilities of impossibility. There is, at most, a "holding-in-common" of deaths that are infinitely separated from each other. In destiny (Geschick), individual Daseins share nothing more than the mutual impossibility of experiencing each other's deaths: there is an infinite distance between the death of the self and the death of the Other, an impossible articulation or interlacing of incommensurable nonexperiences. Every death is a parallel death—and nothing else besides.There is, then, for Heidegger, essentially no rapport between the death of the self and the death of the Other. Dasein is beside the Other in its dying without ever dying in the place of the Other. As Heidegger puts it in paragraph forty-seven of Sein und Zeit, "Wir erfahren nicht im genuinen Sinne das Sterben der Anderen, sondern sind höchstens immer nur 'dabei'" [We do not experience the dying of others in a genuine sense, but are, at the very most, always just 'there'] [SZ 239]. Holding death in common is what holds the members of the relation together in their mutual separation. Despite the methodological sleight of hand that Heidegger terms "destiny," Dasein's relation to its own death is constitutively dissociated from that of the Other.In contrast to this tendency, Blanchot conceives of the self's relation to its own death as an exposure that opens onto the death of the other person. Such is Blanchot's most important contribution to the thought of death, as well as what distinguishes his position most radically from... (shrink)

Dreh- und Angelpunkt des vorliegenden Buches ist der Gemeinschaftsbegriff. Er soll in seinen zahlreichen, komplexen und miteinander verflochtenen Bedeutungsfacetten erortert werden. Im Zuge einer kritischen Text- und Begriffsanalyse wird gezeigt, dass der gemeinsame Gegenstand der Gemeinschaft ein vielschichtiges Phanomen ist, dem in der Denkgeschichte sowie in der Alltagssprache und -kultur zahlreiche Ausdifferenzierungen entsprechen. Die Paradigmen der Gemeinschaft werden in 15 Kapiteln anhand der semantischen Auffacherung der prapositionalen Komposita des Grundwortes -teilung herausgearbeitet. Der Inhalt: Teilung. Heideggers Kreide, oder: Was bedeutet eigentlich, (...) eine Pizza zu teilen? * Aufteilung und Verteilung. "Gemeinsame Guter" und WG-Gesucht * Erteilung. Was ist eine Gabe? * Arbeitsteilung. Offentlichkeit und oikos bei "Hans im Gluck" * Einteilung und Unterteilung. Gemeinschaft der Mengen und Teilmengen * Erdenteilung. Immanuel Kant vs. Reinhard Mey * Zweiteilung und Dreiteilung. Hendiadyoin als Logik der Gemeinschaft * Abteilung. Vom Limes zum Limen * Spielbeteiligung. Be-dingte Gemeinschaft * Teil. Gemeinschaft als Perlenkette * Mitteilung. Kafer und Mitsein * Gegenteil. Eros und Anteros als Formen der Gemeinschaft * Schicksalszuteilung. Der Mensch auf der Flucht * Vorteil, Nachteil, Bauteil, Bestandteil, Urteil, Losteilung und Teilnahmslosigkeit. Und das ist langst noch nicht alles * Umteilung. Philosophie als Hexengebrau und Gemeinschaft im Auge. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to indicate the extent to which there is a privileged relationship between the experience of the death of a friend and an understanding of what it means to be a self or a subject. In particular this claim is raised against Heidegger who in ¶47 of _Being and Time_ seems to have raised and explicitly denied any such connection but on closer review turns out to have in fact ignored it altogether. This essay aims (...) to wrestle back from Heidegger the irreducible significance of an other’s death by casting light on a specific kind of intersubjectivity that Heidegger fails to consider: friendship. Drawing on the recently published course materials from Heidegger’s tenure in Freiburg, and in particular the 1921 lectures on Augustine’s _Confessions_, this essays points to a decisive turning point in Heidegger’s theory of Mitsein, if only by exposing a road not taken. The argument is that it is precisely because Heidegger, in fact, considers only the death of a “random stranger” rather than anybody that one actually cares for, that he has an easy time dismissing the significance of the death of another. Against Heidegger this essay will argue that when a friend dies one loses not only her friend’s presence but also something of her own. In so suggesting, this essay departs from the otherwise familiar critiques of Heidegger styled after Fichte, Hegel, or Levinas. (shrink)