0

An entity for which, as Being-in-the-world, its Being is itself an issue, has, ontologically, a circular structure

Does this mean that the very reasons for studying the meaning of Being are incomplete until his existential analytic is? That the point of doing so (that it's foundational to the sciences etc.) isn't finalised at the beginning of Being and Time?

  • the alternative reading of this "hermeneutic circle", of parts "ontologically" depending upon the whole, that the very "Being" of Dasein, not just its analysis, is circular, and so Dasein only has its Being when, or if, Dasein, or the analysis of Dasein, is complete, seems wrong to me. i'd welcome a correction tho –  Jan 02 '17 at 22:04

  • I'd suppose he means that our investigations into Being have their meaning only when complete

    No. The investigation will never be complete. It's meaningful because it is an issue. It is the questioning which distinguishes dasein from other entities that don't ask this question. Finding an answer would actually stop dasein's being itself from being an issue. For example, with technicity, one understanding of being, humans are merely resources available for requisition, no more questions necessary.

     – Enowning Jan 23 '17 at 04:08
  • @Enowning yeah i was unclear, will edit –  Jan 23 '17 at 12:32

0 Answers0