Heidegger on "die Welt"

Tarnhari

Tarnhari (2004-12-11 11:13:38): Dear Everybody,
I would most appreciate it if some of You enlightened people would answer the following question:
Heidegger spoke of an In-der-Welt-sein. The "openness" in this state, that according to Heidegger underlies the understanding of existence, also concerns the "world" (Welt or Bedeutsamkeit). What are the limitations of this "world"? Is it to be understood as the totality of existence or could it have been meant as a "situation", perhaps a culture? --

damool (2005-01-13 04:29:04): there's no specific meaning of "world". its said that "Dasein and world are not subject and object" - as a consequence, the meaning of 'world' cannot be determined very precisely. it can be said, though, that the world is 'mine', and that a peasan's world is not a teacher's world, etc. etc.

i remember an essay on "am I, or do I have, what is mine?" - its interesting since my "world" as Heidegger means it cannot be what I "have", since its not an object, but can hardly be exactly what I "am", since Im a Dasein. Thats why I doubt that the "world" could be determined more precisely.

Apostate (2005-01-13 13:52:25): Apostate:
This is where husserl's phenomenological ephoche becomes very facile. By closing out the "outside world", (or at least stridently attempting such), we see exactly how inner-oriented Dasein is. Then we run into the zillion idealist problems involved with such an approach. You wrote a tough post...
Following a bit more on Husserl's line of thought: the "world" is pretty damn negligible when taken from a throughly solipsistic type of perspective. The apperceptive faculty of consciousness becomes more and more crucial in the consideration.
I'm keeping the contents of your post in my head today, and I will keep my eyes as to the way your post progresses from here.

Albert van Grondelle (2005-01-24 04:04:58): welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a claasifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to be closed but they can be open. you can have an open standard and open classifikation. you can have classes on all sorts of levels. privat - local - national - international - etc

Albert van Grondelle (2005-01-24 04:09:59): welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a claasifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to

Albert van Grondelle (2005-01-24 04:26:23):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albert van Grondelle:
welt is weltanschauung. bedeutsamkeit means that you give meaning to the world. you give meaning to the world with your own classes. openness is that you are open for the meaning of others who give meaning to the world. it is like a classifikation. other people use classes as you do.these classes don't have to

---

Massyfeds (2005-01-24 13:56:17): A QUICK NOTE ON HEIDEGGER'S
WELTLICHKEIT DER WELT

A thorough reading of chapter 3, SZ division I, shows precisely that the world is not my own. It is not as a projection of every Dasein, nor is it the summing up of all those projections. And specially, die Welt has nothing to do with Weltanschauung. One can find examples of this Heideggerian denial in Grundprobleme der Phaenomenologie (1927)and Einleitung in die Philosophie (1929). A term like Weltanschauung suggests the certainly unhappy idea that there is something like a vision of a world which is-there in the sheer Vorhandenheit.
The world is precisely that which cannot be seen but it enlightens (at the same time when it is a non thematic something) the things as they are let free to appear.
Die Welt pertains to an entity, in this case das Dasein, that has a certain direction (Ausrichtung) and that is always on his way in his unavoidable Zu-sein.
That is why one can understand Heidegger's denial of traditional thing ontology, which covers up - by means of a ontic beating about the bush - the ontological aspects of human existence.

Massyfeds (2005-01-24 15:32:37): So die Welt is not visible in the sense implied in the contemplation of a thing in its mere Vorhandenheit, but certainly nothing can be viewed without it.

Albert van Grondelle (2005-01-25 00:29:07): the world enlightens the things as they are let free to appear you say. who lets the things free if not yourself with your vision on the world with your classes and namespaces with your tools. if the things are free to appear they are also free to be seen with my catogorizations, classes, names etc.

Massyfeds (2005-01-25 14:21:10): Am I, myself, the one who lets things free so that they can appear? I deny it, and Heidegger would too. In the first place we would have to inquire about the very ontological sense of a self. That is what the modern jargon of the subjectivity of the I has never clarified.
In Heidegger one cannot speak of a categorial imposition over things, as the Kantian case. There is rather an a priori of the world. That is the question.

Massyfeds (2005-01-25 14:22:14): In effect, there is no vision of the world.

Albert van Grondelle (2005-01-26 01:40:33): Of course there is a vision on the world, the other, even if there is an a priori of the world. There is always a experimental try to describe and analyze the world and the meaning of the processes in the world, there is always an intuition of finding out a meaning, you can always improvise a solution. Your openness for the entlightening of these processes and the other (things)and the giving meaning to them is not to deny. You do it every day, every moment.