좋은 토요일에 도서관에 11시간동안 있었더니 나온 결과물

와 하이데거 개갞끼 다시는 그놈 책 읽나봐라

 

First of all, we must examine what the “closest everyday Being-in-the-world” is, to make some sense of it and interpret the passage as thus. Heidegger states that the encounter of Dasein which is closest to it is the environmental encounter of Others. They are encountered in a ‘ready-to-hand’ fashion in the environmental concept of equipment – equipment meaning things “in-order-to”, or things that have a purpose to be filled out.

             Also, it must be noted that the environment is viewed by Heidegger to be our surroundings, but not spatially nor psychologically absolute. It is strictly relative, in the sense that I may be “with” others, and “next” to others at the same time, and vice versa. This environment is affected by myself and alternatively by them, and this determination is known before one has experienced it.

             But, then, what are the Others? They are not simply everyone else but me. The Others are those from whom that one does not distinguish himself from. One can also be ‘with’ the Others, which is a characteristic of Dasein. This ‘with-ness’ is to be understood in the context of existentiality, and not categorically. Because the environment in which Dasein residres in concerned proximally with the environmental encounter with Others, the I of Dasein cannot be differentiated from the Dasein of Others. The primordially given I of the self is always part of the world in which other persons are within.

             Heidegger states that “Being-with is an existential characteristic of Dasein even when factically no Other is present-at-hand or perceived. Even Dasein’s Being-alone is Being-with in the world.” Thus, the Other can never be missing entirely, or in an aspect as such so that the Dasein-with of others cannot be encountered.

             Also, the presence of any number of Other human beings beside the self does not affect the Being-alone nor Being-with of Dasein. They are not based on the simultaneous occurrence or presence of several subjects. To quote, “their Dasein-with is encountered in a mode in which they are indifferent and alien.

             The term that Heidegger uses to explain the relation of the self of the Dasein-with with the Others is solicitude. The others themselves are Dasein and thus cannot be viewed as equipment ready-to-hand and are not objects of concern. Solicitude, Heidegger claims, is a state of Dasein’s being, in which is bound up with its Being towards the world of its concern, and likewise with itself. Through solicitous concern, one may know oneself, which is a primordial understanding that is grounded in Being-with.

             To explain solicitude further, the positive modes of solicitude have examples of two extremes. In Heidegger’s terms, they are to “leap in”, and to “leap ahead”. The former, can take away the care of the Other, essentially “leaping in” for him. For example, a parent that does the homework of his/her child (the Other) for him/her, is “leaping in”, taking away the care, and throwing the child out of his own position. The latter could be explained from the position of the child, who has given his care away to his parent – although this is not such a good example; the care is given ‘back’ to the Other when “leaping ahead”.

             Through the concern that one utilizes in encountering the Others, it is possible for the self to be lost among the masses of Others. The question of who in everyday Dasein is no longer the self of Dasein, but the “They”. They are different from Others in that They is a characteristic of the self which determines a mode of existence, and the Others are relationships occurring within those modes.

             Heidegger defines those modes into two terms: the authentic-self and the They-self. Proximally, the they-self is not the Self in which that is “am” but rather the Others who are. The self of the Dasein does not lose its self-ness to other Daseins, but to a mode of its own Dasein – the They. The They is a primordial phenomenon, belonging to the positive constitution of Dasein. The everyday Being-in-the-world’s self is the self of the They – the They-self. It has been dispersed into the They, and has not yet been able to find itself. It has been buried within the masses of the Others.

             That is not to say that the They-self is the self-Dasein of the Others. As said above, the Others are not the same as They, one refers to the relationships, the latter refers to the modes of existence (of everyday Dasein). The They-self loses sight of the self, and yet is the self of oneself, and not of Others. The They-ness, the dispersion of the Dasein, is caused only by the Self.

             Then, we can interpret the passage “This very state of Being, in its everyday kind of Being, is what proximally misses itself and covers itself up.” The everyday kind of Being is one that is proximally encountered and environmentally concerned, with-world, with the Others. The who, or the self, of this everyday kind of Being, can become the They-self. The They-self has lost track of what it “is” and is unable to find itself. It is effectively, “what misses itself and covers itself up.” The They-self, unlike the authentic-self, has lost the awareness of itself.

             In summary, what it means to miss itself can be identified through the understanding of the Others in which we are environmentally concerned with, and through which (the concern) we may lose the awareness of ourselves, the everyday Being-in-the-world becoming the “They-self”.

              In order to visualize its significance, we must first understand what Anxiety, or “Angst”, is. To begin, we should know what it is not. It is not fear. To be certain, both fear and Anxiety share common characteristics which can make them confusing to differentiate.

             However, in order to feel fear, we must have an object or subject of which we can be fearful of. When we are feeling fear, we are facing something that is threatening to us. For example, we might be fearful of a lion in front of us – something that exists and makes its presence known to us. But Anxiety has no subject – it is the very nothingness of which that we feel Anxiety about that differentiates it from fear. It does not come from anywhere unlike fear. To quote: “That in the face of which one has anxiety is characterized by the fact that what threatens is nowhere.”

             Moreover, fear itself is derived from Anxiety. In the face of a detrimental entity that is within-the-world, one shrinks back and withdraws. This act of withdrawing, however, has the character of what Anxiety causes one to do: flee. This fleeing is described by Heidegger as “falling” which is grounded in Anxiety, which makes fear possible.

Then, what is falling? Heidegger uses the term to describe the act of withdrawing, or shrinking back, from whatever horrors that we feel Anxiety from. But as described above, Anxiety has no subject, no entity within-the-world, in which we may place the blame upon. However, there is one thing that can be the subject of Anxiety, which is Dasein’s Being (as Being-in-the-world) itself, for the nothingness of the subject of Anxiety does not mean that the world is absent, but that entities within-the-world is utterly insignificant. Therefore, falling is the withdrawal, the ‘fleeing from’, of Dasein in the face of itself. To quote: “Being-in-the-world itself is that in the face of which anxiety is anxious.”

Why does Dasein flee in the face of itself? It is stated by Heidegger that in anxiety, one feels “uncanny”, which can be interpreted as the feeling of “not-being-at-home”. The feeling of “uncannyness” comes from Dasein’s unwanted escape from the tranquilized everydayness of the world of They to the individualized Being-in-the-world of Dasein. The everydayness and familiarity of Dasein collapses as it falls.

Before continuing, we must briefly go over the world of the They and what it means for Dasein. The They-self, or the everyday self of Dasein, is differentiated from the authentic-self by Heidegger to be the self that we as Dasein are lost within. The everyday Being-in-the-world’s self is the self of the They – the They-self. It has been dispersed into the They, and has not yet been able to find itself, having been absorbed into the masses. The publicness of the They provides Dasein with a world of tranquilized familiarity in which it may dwell in. In falling, it is forced out of this They-world and into face with itself.

In forcing Dasein to face itself, Anxiety causes Dasein to understand itself in its own terms, as its own being-in-the-world, rather than as part of the They-world. It individualizes Dasein as the potentiality of itself, freeing it to make its own choices. Anxiety frees Dasein into authenticity, and Dasein in turn tries to flee from its authenticity into the comforting being-at-home world of the inauthentic. The subject of Anxiety can now be finally described as the potentiality-for-Being-in-the-world.

The ultimate object of this analysis of Anxiety is to show that the primordial existence of Dasein is “Care”. The structural whole of Dasein’s everydayness can be described with the phenomenon of Anxiety as a state-of-mind. It is through Anxiety in which we may grasp the totality of Being, which is Care.

But what is Care? First of all, Care as itself seems easy to grasp intuitively. Care can be seen as the entirety of our existence and what we do with/in it. Everything that we can do can be described as a kind of care; our reflections upon ourselves is Care for ourselves, and all our feelings, our interests, concerns, disappointments, and love and hatred can be described as a form of Care. Heidegger is quick to point out that “…phenomena which might be proximally identified with care, such as will, wish, addiction, and urge… they themselves are founded upon it [Care].”

Heidegger describes care as being constituted of three elements. The first is Understanding, of which its chief characteristic is to project possibilities. When this is applied to the question of the self, Understanding is what that projects its own possibilities to itself. Through this, Dasein becomes aware of its own possibilities through which it may choose to become authentic (in which the Dasein’s Being is of its own world) or inauthentic (of which Dasein’s Being belongs to the world of the They). This is called “Being-ahead-of-itself”. It is important to note that the conflict between authenticity and inauthenticity is derived from the state-of-mind of Anxiety.

Secondly, we must take note that Understanding always has a state-of-mind as defined by Heidegger. For the world in which we are within has limits, the Being-ahead-of-itself as described above is not only Being-ahead-of-itself but also Being-ahead-of-itself-in-the-world, the world being deterministic and limiting our choices. Dasein is aware of both its possibilities and limits in the world, and Care therefore also has the element of state-of-mind.

Finally, Dasein as Dasein is also occupied with what can be described as inauthentic events. For example, the discourse, or “idle talk” of everydayness may be described as a daily inauthentic event, for it is neither our own Being or be something that is present-at-hand. This is called fallenness by Heidegger, who adds it to the general characteristics of Care, calling it Being-alongside.

Perhaps more importantly, however, the two modes of Care in which it manifests itself as Dasein, is concern and solicitude as described in the previous sections. Concern is what Heidegger describes as an activity of Dasein which it relates to beings in the world that are ready-at-hand, which refers to things that can be used without the need for us to theorize on them – equipment. Equipment is things that are “in order to”, with a purpose to be filled out, and we interact with them by concerning ourselves with their purpose. When we are concerned, we are absorbed and involved.

To explain solicitude, we must retouch upon the subject of Others. The Others are those from whom that one does not distinguish himself from. One can also be ‘with’ the Others, which is a characteristic of Dasein. This ‘with-ness’ is to be understood in the context of existentiality, and not categorically. Because the environment in which Dasein residres in concerned proximally with the environmental encounter with Others, the I of Dasein cannot be differentiated from the Dasein of Others. The primordially given I of the self is always part of the world in which other persons are within.

Solicitude is used by Heidegger to explain the relation of the self of the Dasein-with with the Others. The others themselves are Dasein and thus cannot be viewed as equipment ready-to-hand and are not objects of concern. Solicitude, Heidegger claims, is a state of Dasein’s being, in which is bound up with its Being towards the world of its concern, and likewise with itself. Through solicitous concern, one may know oneself, which is a primordial understanding that is grounded in Being-with.

Now, we can show a clearer relation of Anxiety and Dasein’s Being as Care. Anxiety as a state-of-mind is a way of Being-in-the-world. The subject of Anxiety is the very potentiality-for-Being-in-the-world. What anxiety faces off is its authentic self versus its inauthentic self, as a Being-in-the-world. All of those are combined into the elements of Care, which is the totality of the structure of Dasein, and is revealed to be Dasein’s Being.

The interpretation of Dasein as Care may seem confusing, or even wrong. Humans may not be seen as the embodiment of “Care” for we can become both heinous and cruel to unimaginable degrees. But Heidegger’s pre-ontological understanding of Dasein’s own understanding of itself as Care, does not derive from the empathical connotations that Care has in everyday use. Instead, Care is the basis and foundation from which those feelings, such as empathy are derived from.

In order to analyze Dasein as Care primordially, Heidegger required what he terms as “the most far-reaching and most primordial possibilities of disclosure – one that lies in Dasein itself.” This must be accessed in a simplified way in order to disclose the structural totality of Dasein in an elemental way. The state-of-mind which fulfilled these methodlogical requirements was the phenomenon of Anxiety, which was the basis for Heidegger’s explicit grasping of Dasein’s Being as care.

그래서, 슈뢰딩거는 뭐라고 꼬집었지?