by Martin Heidegger
First, an observation on the first indicator of facticity. The title that we started putting: ontology.
"ontology" means doctrine of being. If you listen to this term is not out anything other than a vague indication that what is to be investigated in what follows and that what is going to talk (through some form of topic) is being, then the word ontology, as a title, it has provided all services offered . But if the term ontology means a discipline that, for instance, could be within the range of tasks from the neo-scholastic or the Scholastic phenomenological or currents of academic philosophy determined or influenced by Phenomenology, then the word ontology is inadequate as a title for the item is and how to address the issue.
But if you also take the ontology as a slogan, for example, Kant attacks today have become fashionable, or more plainly contrary to the spirit of Luther, or even more fundamental: against all open asking not panic in advance to their own consequences, in short, if the ontology is defined as a claim for the slave revolt against philosophy as such, then the term ontology as a title can not only lead to confusion and errors.
In what follows, the ontology and ontological terms are used only in the sense of emptiness that we have referred, as a non-binding. Mean: a question and a determination made straight as it is, what to be, and how, is still entirely unknown.
While memory or evocation of the Greek word on (on), ontology means both the treatment of {2} questions received, traditional, referring to being that on the ground or basis of classical Greek philosophy continued after starring a great strength followers. And although the ontology transmitted, received, traditional, present itself as dealing with the determinations or general nature of being, it really is and also the view is a certain level of being.
The use of the term is done in the modern world ontology means both as a theory of object and, suddenly, only a formal theory, and in this respect agrees with the old ontology (and metaphysics, with the old Metaphysics generalis).
But the modern ontology is not an isolated discipline, but who is or is presented in a peculiar entanglement with strictly what is meant by phenomenology. Ontology as a concept articulated and projected in terms of what we mean by research only started emerging (newly emerged) in the Phenomenology. Ontology of nature, culture, ontology, ontologies materials: these are the disciplines ontologies in which the "objective content" (or "content knowledge" or "cognitive content") of these regions (or that these regions account or that these regions contain) peel or debug it and it brings to light in objectualist character required. And thus obtained it later and later served as a common thread to the problems of the constitution, that is, for clarifying the structure and genesis contexts of consciousness, the objects of this or that species.
Conversely, only from the Phenomenology is possible to raise the ontology corresponding to a secure base in relation to the problems that concern the ontology, and maintain it in a regular and orderly way. It is looking at consciousness-in (and only looking at the consciousness-of), becomes visible as the de-what-what of that consciousness-of, ie, the nature of the subject of an entity as such, ie The subject matter of that entity as such character of the object. And what matters to the ontology, ie what is in the ontology, ie, the subject of them, are the characteristics of the object (the constitutive characteristics of objects as objects) in the "field of being ' question. But precisely why is not them of being as such, ie, of being without objects, assumed to be no object. Phenomenology strict sense as the phenomenology of the constitution in the sense that the latter term is in the tradition of transcendental philosophy [ie, this is the concept of phenomenology in the narrow sense, MJR]. Phenomenology in the broad sense includes in its concept as understood by phenomenology indefinitely.
But such an ontology does not raise the question of what "field to be" must obtain "sense of being" (what it means to be) that is decisive and direct all the problems. That question is unknown and therefore (to the ontology) will also remain closed its own source, its origin, in Regarding the genesis of his own sense.
Therefore, the fundamental inadequacy of traditional ontology and current ontology is twofold: {3}
1) For her the issue is from the self-object principle, the objectivity of certain objects, and [ this in the sense of] object for theoretical consideration, and this in turn in a sense that has not differentiated yet unspecified, theoretical consideration, or: [for them the issue is] the self-object to certain material science nature and culture concerning the object in question [ie, they have to that object by object, for which this object is an object], and in any case [for the theme that ontology is] the world as seen through these object domains or areas of knowledge or subject areas, but not from the exsistencia [Dasein] and the possibilities of exsistencia or define the exsistencia, or also [to the ontology the issue is] a hang the object-object or being other characters apart from the theoretical [eg, evaluative character, MJR]. (Note: double meaning of "nature" as a world and as the object domain or field of knowledge, the "nature" as a formalized world comes only from the exsistencia [Dasein], historicity, therefore, (Nature) is "foundation" or "base" of its historicity (the historicity of the exsistencia) Leib also correspondingly, ie, "body" [in the sense of living body, of embodiment lived MJR].
2) What it comes, arises, is born and still is that the ontology is closed access to critical agency within the philosophical issue: what we call exsistencia [Dasein], from which and for which philosophy "is."
As the title of ontology is taken in the vague sense without compromise to which we have referred, namely, in the sense that the title refers to the whole question and all research aiming to be as such, in that sense, I say, we have no objection to using it in what follows, "ontological" then refers to the questions, explanations, concepts, categories that are born or not born of a look at the body while being.
(When searching for "ontology" is usually hand throw the old metaphysical superstition and dogmatism without the slightest chance and without even a tendency towards a kind of research that really is able to raise issues, ask questions )
(In "time" just trying to show that the ontology will also contain key issues.)
The title follows the subject and how to deal with what follows, I have to say rather: hermeneutics of facticity. PREFACE
[i]
{5} Asking questions, issues put before it, issues are not occurrences, issues are not what today is often called problems, which is cast from hand what run around and what has been read and is accompanying the gesture of being so thinking very deeply. Questions, questions, born of the discussion with "things." And there are only things which are eyes, [another translation:] things are only there where the eyes [another translation:] things are only there when there are eyes.
And this is how we will "raise" some questions here, and the more so now the question has fallen into disuse because of that eager to deal with "problems." Moreover, is secretly working on dismantling the questions become, with the intention of giving rank and excellence to the breeding and cultivation of the absence of questions that characterizes blind faith. Declares the sacred "essential law" in that case, and thus is taken seriously is [one is taken seriously] for one's own time, which because of its fragility and lack of substance is undoubtedly need it. Is not [to be is not] as anything else but because the business, the laborious occupation with problems, obstacles and keep rolling without friction, is an adult to arrange to live a lie. The philosophy interprets its own corruption as a "resurrection of metaphysics."
Companion in my search was the young Luther, and the model was Aristotle who hated Luther. Kierkegaard impulses came from me and put me eye Husserl. Be said that for those who just "get it" when they do something to reckon with in terms of historical influences, which is but the pseudoentender that characterizes the scramble for news, and therefore abhorrence of that [ie, a look away from that] it's the only thing that is decisive. Those who behave well {6} should facilitate the "trend" that characterizes his "understanding" so that they can easily sink into themselves. Well of them can not expect anything. The only thing I care about and all they grow is - "pseudo."
PART WAYS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE EXSISTENCIA [DASEIN] EXSISTENCIA BE IN EACH OF WHICH EXSISTENCIA
Facticidad is how we designate the character of being of "our" "own" exsistencia. More precisely the term means: exsistencia is in each case it is, is this exsistencia, ie, existence is to each his [the phenomenon of "each-is", the "on-each-case "cf. the phenomena of delayed, non slip, of being in it, of being in it, of being in it, which in German is said da-bei-sein, da-sein] in that the existence (according to his own being , ie according to the way of being in that is) by its nature or structure of being is "there" ist da [óigase this also in the sense that existence is the being of a there is a da , MJR].
The money "according to his way of being" or "way of being" mean the following: [the exsistencia is it] not primarily and never primarily as an object of a look from outside or as the subject of a determination resulting from looking at it from out, ie, the pure charge heard of it and gain knowledge about what has taken notice, but the exsistencia [Dasein], on how and how its being more typical, it is itself there, ist selbst da, is she there, is to be identified there, is itself to be that there. How or so that their being open and defines the "there" as possible in each case. Be, but transitive sense: to be factual life! Being itself, ie be selbst, ie being self, that is, unless he is himself, that is, unless he is to be that being, that is, being which consists in being himself, that is, be that is to be, that is, unless I repeat consists in being himself that being, that therefore he can never become the subject of a take, because of what it is about himself, ie that being, that is, to be himself that being, that is the be him, he being pregnant, of being so siéndose.
The exsistencia, while in each case the own, mine, while that of each, does not mean that relativity via singling getting the exsistencia [first considered in a generic sense] an individual from the outside and, therefore, while exsistencia itself, while that of each one, while mine does not mean the individual (solus ipse), but this being the exsistencia own, mine is a how of being, a possible indication of being awake or being awake, waking possible. But not mean, say, a regional division in the sense that we put the thing over there by way of isolating it.
And therefore, factual and factual means that which [ie, that being that] in regard to being-and that its character be, is divided from itself and "is" articulated from itself. If you take the "life" as a way of being, then "factual life" means the following: our own exsistencia (Dasein, being-there) as "there", ie while is that there ie, as consisting in being, ie siéndose while there, ie, while being there in the way of being the exsistencia that there, in one of the ways in which (for its own being or under its own being or your own form of it to be) can become expressed that the character of being [ie consisting express can become the their existence on being there, being himself so].
{9} CHAPTER ONE Hermeneutics
§ 2. Hermeneutics in its traditional concept
hermeneutic expression used here as an indication of a unitary that will be our approach, to focus, to access, interrogate, and to include the facticity.
Hermeneutik (episteme, techne), Hermeneutics (defined as knowledge or technique) is a derivative of hermeneuein, Hermeneia, Hermeneus. The etymology of the word is obscure [ii].
is placed in connection with the name of the god Hermes, the messenger of the gods.
Some events may help to define the original meaning of the word, yet understand the way you have changed meanings.
Plato poietai hoi ouden all 'e hermenês Eisin ton Theon [iii] (poets are nothing but the "performers" that the "voices" of the gods). Therefore, the bards who recite in turn make the poets can say: Oukoun hermeneon gignesthai secrecy, [iv] is not perhaps you become interpreters of interpreters, the spokesmen of the speakers? Hermeneus is someone who conveys, who reported to someone what someone else "thinks", or who becomes a mediator of this transmission or notification, that is, who in turn re-investment; cf. "The Sophist" by Plato 248 ª 5, 246e3: aphermeneue, inform, notify me what others think, tell me what others say.
The "Theaetetus", 209a5, says: Logos = he tries diaphorótetos hermeneia TES, the logos is a report, a manifest, one to express the difference from the other things (or the difference from you over other ) (but next to them and about what koinonia) [for example, that this thing, in regard to color, is green and not red like there pitched nature of insight, he said Zubiri MJR]. (Cf. Theaetetus 163C: what you see in the words and what they communicate those who explain, what we see and hear ourselves as we read and hear, and what grammarians and interpreters teach us) {10} therefore not design or interpretation or theoretical grasp but will, desire, etc., ie, be exsistencia ie, hermeneutics is to make manifest (the prior notice of) the being of beings in their being-on-a-( me.)
Aristotle: The physis is served from the tongue (glottei) for gustary to speak, and while the taste (geusis) is necessary and hence occur in most animals, the possibility to express has no other purpose than perfection, I d'hermeneia héneka eu tou [v]. (That is: the body, when it is a living, you need the language for both like to talk with others in the common dealings with them, of those two things, taste, geusis, is of necessity in relation to things (and so do most of the living), but the hermeneia, referring to something and talk about something with others (talk about something) is for good, has its reason for being in the eu in the well, ie to ensure the living his being as such (in their world and with his world). This text refers hermeneia Aristotle, then, simply and represents the dialektos, ie, conversation with others in the current deal with others and with things, but dialektos is not factual but the way in which the logos is produced, and the latter, ie the logos (the talk about something, talking, say) whose function is to deloun ... to symphéron kai to blaberón [vi], ie, provides the highlight being in its serna it helpful or harmful (ie, the logos makes accessible the body for a track done with it by putting it forward, as is whether it is appropriate or not.) See also hermeneuein
; Philostratus [vii]. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum Comment [viii]. Pericles in Thucydides: "And yet you encolerizáis against a man as I believe no less than anyone to know what is necessary and explain (gnonai Deonta kai ta you hermeneusai tauta) apart from loving the city and above all bribery" [ix ].
Aristotle lego ... Lexin hen einai day onomasías hermeneia TES (I say that the language of discourse is the interpretation (thinking) through the words ...)[ x].
{11} Among the "writings" of Aristotle has been handed a hermeneia Per the title. In that letter speaks of the logos on what is the fundamental operation of this that is exposed and get acquainted with the entity. The title of the document, therefore, as just indicated is entirely appropriate. But neither Aristotle, nor his immediate successors in the Peripato, introduced the written under that title. Happened to the disciples of Aristotle on the legacy of this as an "unfinished sketch," and "Untitled." At the time of Andronicus of Rhodes that title was already common. H. Meier, who says with good reason the authenticity of the letter, assumes that the title appears for the first time in the first generation following Eudemus Theophrastus [xi].
In this context, that word as a title of a particular investigation Aristotle is not important only in relation to the history of its meaning. What he does say, the function of speech, is to become accessible as being shown something there, that is, show us something as being present there in front. And as such, the logos have that mentioned possibility of representing the aletheuein (to make available as soon uncovered, ie, leaving it open there, what was once hidden, covered, what before was not in sight what once was, but not visible). And because the letter of Aristotle speaks of it, so he is rightly called Peri hermeneia. The Byzantines widespread
this meaning of hermeneuein, and in that generalization, hermeneuein corresponds to what we call "mean", a term, or a concatenation of terms, it means something, means something, "has a meaning" (hence the meaning of Platonism) .
Philo calls Moses Hermeneus theou [xii], hermeneutics of God (poster, a preacher, reveals the will of God.)
Aristeas: ta ton Ioudaion grammata hermeneia prosdeitai [xiii] (the writings of the Jews have need of translation, interpretation). Translate: What's in a foreign language in itself make it accessible for the latter [This is the approach to be followed by moving to Heideggger into Castilian, and not to do so unintelligible, MJR]. In the mean time hermeneia Christian churches as well as comment (enarratio) eis ten hermeneia oktateuchon, comments Octateuco, Octateuco interpretation, comment, interpret, look what a properly written {12} was meant, and thus make available it said, help to access it. Hermeneia = exegesis. San Augustine
provides the first "hermeneutics" high style. Homo timens Deum, ejus in Scripturius sanctis voluntatem diligenter inquirit. Et ne certamina amet, Pietat mansuetus; praemunitus etiam scientia linguarum, ne in verbis locutionibusque ignotis haereat; praemunitus quarumdam etiam rerum necessariarum Cognition, ne earum quae propter vim naturamve similitudinem adhibentur, ignoret; adjuvant codicum etiam veritate, quam Solers emendationis diligentia procuravit: veniat ita Scripturarum paper discusses ambiguous instructus atque ad solvendo [xiv] [Castilian that means: the man who fears God, diligently seeking out in Scripture God's will. And it does so transfixed and tamed by piety, so as not to be lured by vain disputes, and provided the knowledge of languages \u200b\u200bin order not to get caught in unfamiliar words and phrases, also defended the knowledge of some things needed to order not to ignore force or the nature of things that are adduced by way of likeness, it also helps the truth of the codes he has to procure with wit and amending and correcting with diligence and cleanliness, and well educated, come to discuss and resolve ambiguous passages of Scripture MJR].
Provided "what man has to approach the interpretation of obscure passages of Scripture?: Fear God and with the sole concern of seeking his will in Scripture, formed, and pierced by the mercy In order not to be dragged by the fans to the disputes of words, armed with the knowledge of languages \u200b\u200bin order to avoid hanging in words or idioms unknown, provided the knowledge of certain objects and natural cases of Scripture given for illustration, in order not to ignore their probative value, supported by the content of truth ...
In the seventeenth century we find the Sacred Hermeneutics title for what is also known by the name of Clavis Scripturae Sacrae [xv], or ad sacral Isagoge bunk [xvi], or Tractatus de interpretatione [xvii] or sacred Philologie [xviii]. {13}
hermeneutics and interpretation is not now the same, but the theory or doctrine of the conditions of the object, means of communication to others, and the practical application of the interpretation; cf. Johannes Jakob Rambach:
(1) "De fundamentis hermeneuticae sacrae" [xix]. On the proper disposition of the interpretation of texts, the meaning of texts.
(2) "In Mediis hermeneuticae sacrae domesticis" [xx]. The analogy of faith as a principle of interpretation, the circumstances, passions, order, context, parallelism of the Scriptures.
(3) "De Mediis hermeneuticae sacrae externis et litterariis" [xxi]. On the media grammatical, critical, rhetorical, logical, and related to the various sciences. Translation and commentary.
(4) "In legitimate inventive sensus tractatione "[xxii], ie how to communicate or to test the effect found, porismática implementation and practical application. (Porismata, porizein, deduct by way of consequence or inference)
This idea of \u200b\u200bhermeneutics, seen in its full extent, and certainly lives, Schleiermacher (cf. Saint Augustine) restricts then an "art (or doctrine art or art theory) to understand "[xxiii] what another says, and puts it as a discipline in connection with the grammar, rhetoric and dialectic, the methodology is formal title includes" hermeneutic general "(theory or teaching the art to understand the speech of others, what others say) are special hermeneutics theological hermeneutics and philological hermeneutics. Boeckh
took this idea of \u200b\u200bhermeneutics in his encyclopedia and methodology of philological sciences [xxiv]. {14}
Dilthey endorsed the concept of hermeneutics of Schleiermacher as "regulation of understanding" ("doctrine or theory of art of interpreting written monuments) [xxv], but he gave him a basis to understand how such analysis, including in the context of their research on the development of the human sciences also the development of hermeneutics.
And yet, when one takes into account precisely this last point, it appears a fatal limitation for the position of Dilthey. Well, precisely because of this, he remained hidden Dilthey (in regard to the development of hermeneutics itself) the critical periods of this development (the Fathers and Luther), as he was always confined to become subject the development of hermeneutics only in the aspect that this development is highlighted the trend towards what he considered the essentials of hermeneutics, namely, to become the methodology of hermeneutics spirit. The systematic distorting today is practicing the positions of Dilthey (as, for example, Spranger), the systematic spoiling these positions, no longer comes anywhere near approaching even to approach, to those positions of Dilthey and self limited and not very transparent (and maintained with little energy) in regard to the direction of the essentials.
§ 3. Hermeneutics as self-interpretation of facticity
Well, calling hermeneutic research continues, we are not using the word in its modern sense, nor with the meaning of a theory interpretation, taken so broadly. [In our context] the term, connecting with its original meaning, means more is going to mean good or rather, a certain unity in the implementation of hermeneuein, ie the implementation of the report, the state, ie the implementation of an interpretation of facticity, which must make the listener the ceiling, the look, the apprehended and understood.
We choose the word in its original meaning because the word, albeit radically insufficient, emphasizes, however, for the record, some time working in the {15} investigation and analysis of facticity. As in regards its object, ie the object of hermeneutics, that it was, while how to address (and that is what hermeneutics is intended to be), comes to be already an indication that the subject only that which has as a subject of interpretation and in need of interpretation, that is, when that object belongs the credit of being in interpretation, ie, having to come-it-interpreted, ie moving in a intreparetado-ness, that is, moves into a coming-it-interpreted. Hermeneutics is the task of making itself accessible exsistencia (in his capacity of being) to the same exsistencia, in communicating, in tell, told, to make inquiry of this sort of autoextrañamiento, the suffering that comes exsistencia and taxed and traded. Hermeneutics in shape for the exsistencia a possibility, namely to become entendiente for itself and be entendiente for itself.
This understanding that comes and wakes up in the interpretation, in no way can compare with that one act-on-a-la-life-of-other in terms of knowledge, ie is it something entirely different, it is not an act-on-a, a been-about (ie, not intentional), but a exsistencia how the same [ie, has no character concept, but "physical", which would Zubiri MJR], to fix this terminological, let's say right away that this is the be-awake, that is, of being-in-exsistencia vigil for herself.
Hermeneutics is not a way hash dictated by curiosity, and imposed artificially cultivated exsistencia flippantly to the outside. From the facticity itself is where we must find out to what extent and when that facticity requires something like the interpretation which we are referring to talk of hermeneutics. The relationship between hermeneutics and factuality is not the relationship that exists between the apprehension of an object and the object apprehended, the apprehension that simply had to accommodate, but the play itself is a possible and pointed out how (and signaled a possible way to be) the character of being of facticity. The interpretation is being (ie, ingredient entitative) [ingredient "physical" Zubiri would MJR] the being of the same factual life. If the facticity (of course, inappropriately) you want to call "object" of hermeneutics (as plants are the subject of botany), then it (the hermeneutic) would be reached and caught by surprise and trapped, its own object (similar to as if they were what plants are and how they are, because there are botanical and from botany).
The said "connection to be", ie the connection entitative [physical MJR] that hermeneutics saved with the object, make your way of approaching things, execution or exercise preceding temporary appropriation (both form factual and by the structure of being involved here) for that operation (in this respect) might be made of any science. {16} The possibility of failure is a basic event, which belongs to be the company's own hermeneutics. The nature of evidence of the explicit holding of the exsistencia, is essentially labile; evidence ascribing an ideal to want to attribute even the exaggerated ideal of evidence that represents the ideal of "intuition of essence" would be an ignorance of what can and should hermeneutics.
hermeneutic research topic is in each case the exsistencia own, which asks hermeneutic for his "character to be" to develop a wake (vigil) of itself for itself, growing from the own exsistencia roots and has to do with them. Being factual life is characterized not only the "how" (ie, in the form of being) that represents Being self-potential, ie being self-potential, ie, consisting of himself into a being-possible, in the form himself into a possibility. The possibility himself more suited to the exsistencia (facticity) is, and without that possibility is one thing that is 'there', let's call Existenz or exist. And the prospect of this being properly she is like (using the approach is to ask how hermeneutics) will be included in our facticity (call it that) prae-be, ie what we have in advance , in that from which and in which order to become the object of interpretation facticity; conceptual ingredients that we will emerge as a result of this interpretation will call the existential [or existential if we follow the translation of D. José Gaos].
"apprehend," "grab", enter conceptually, that is Begriff, begreifen in German, does not refer to a scheme, but a possibility of the exsistencia, the possibility of stare and repair itself and therefore constitute the stare and reoparar itself, ie the possibility of Augenblick and thus constitutive of the Augenblick, "concipere", apprehend, catch, enter a meaning derived conceptually (sample and implies a prae-habere, one already in it beforehand, ie, a being in the basic experience from which and in view of the interpretation is made, involves prae-conceptio, ie pre-arrest, calls for how the reference (the address) and question the exsistencia ie, a put, a exsistencia get into line with the trend to self-interpretation that characterizes it and under it concerns the basic concepts [associated with it or where it is plasma] are elements that give a posteriori, but are the tractor bearing element and putting forward ahead whatever that is, putting forward the issue, for that set or Augenblick, allow us to grasp, grab the exsistencia in the manner and form it has. The prae-
habere of interpretation, the child can not be thematically presented as a simple referral object, tell it, it runs out, is precisely a sign of his character-of-being (the nature of being of praehabere of that we started taking) as an ingredient not only establishing but also crucial to an interpretation that she is the co-there (in the exsistencia or being-there is), it shares the character of being that there: be-possible possibility of being itself. This being-possible is delimited, and may vary based on the factually own situation, which in each case, straighten the hermeneutical question, to which it is, the prae-habere is not, therefore, discretionary and arbitrary.
"Life leaves only explain if it is lived, as also Christ did not begin to explain {17} and to show how the Scriptures teach about him, just as he rose from the dead." Kierkegaard, Diario 15. IV. 1838. [Xxvi]
issues and uncertainties in hermeneutics and questionable, problematical and uncertain of their purpose: the object: the exsistencia only in itself [ie exsistencia it can only be same, ie only being herself, or is just being herself what it is, that is, only siéndose, ie there is only herself to be so]. The exsistencia is, but only while en route from itself to itself. This way of being of hermeneutics can not be eliminated, it can not be treated as something that can artificially replaced. This must be taken into account decisive. This is reflected in how you have to anticipate, how to jump forward (to cover the whole) and what is the only way to go. Well ahead does not mean setting a term, a say, here comes the object, but precisely to take into account the "on track" the release, the open, the being-possible capture or being-in-able.
this issue or problem or hermeneutics basic uncertainty also reflects a fundamental question regarding the prae-habere, to advance what we have. This issue is reflected, contrabrilla, ie, shines in all characters to be with us to characterize the exsistencia; problematic, ontic issue or issues: care, restlessness, anxiety, temporality. In such a challenge or problem and it is only where we should take or take over the situation in which or for which there may be something like: set the term, set order, seize the end. Well this can happen only where there is something fixable or verifiable precisely the fact of not fixed, and that as a way to be the exsistencia or being-there. How does that relate to all this the problem of death? The hermeneutic
is where it starts to develop the position or situation from which we can ask a radical way, without using the traditional theme that represents the idea of \u200b\u200bman. (Having-questionably, having but as a problem, just referred to, which characterizes the prae-habere, to what we started to have, ie that the existence of which is fixable but not set it as a way of being of exsistencia precisely as a problem of structure, constitution or nature of existence, if in general we have to deal somehow, from this point, is not it visible to be-possible in their specific character and exsistencial autonomous, ie concerning the Existenz, the small drop?).
addition, the interpretation takes as a starting point today, that is, making a starting point the compressibility determined average rate that particular understanding of that philosophy through the lives and zurückspricht that philosophy, ie, retro- speech, namely that philosophy (of denial) just talking, that is, that ends up being the recipient of the filofía live in it for him. The Se, each has something determinedly positive, it represents only a phenomenon of fall, or the phenomenon of a fall, but it is as such a "how" (a way of being) of the exsistencia factual.
The circle or sphere of comprehensibility of the factual (the circle or sphere of being factually understanding) is something that can never be measured or calculated in advance. And equally, the way that this circle, this area of \u200b\u200bunderstanding, has to operate, the way it becomes effective, it can not regulate guided by the understanding and communication of mathematical results. But in the background, even this is irrelevant, since hermeneutics puts us in a situation and it is from this situation where it is possible to understand.
{18} There is a "universal" hermeneutic of understanding if not the formal side of it [ie, the formal side of this understanding], and even when it has such universal ingredients, all hermeneutics is to understand itself and understand their tasks would have no choice but to take distance from them and return to the exsistencia in each case the re-factual that exsistencia careful in calling attention to herself. The element "formal" is never autonomous, but that only represents a certain loading, a load relief, aid mundane. For the purpose of hermeneutics is not to be a charge notice of something, but the aim of hermeneutics is exsistencial knowledge, ie, the goal of hermeneutics is to be a being. That is, speech hermeneutics come from the exsistencia interpreted for itself and speaks for that interpreted the exsistencia come to herself, that is, speaking from and for the come-interpreted-the-exsistencia, ie, speaking from and for non-be-the-existence-but-in-this-coming-it-played-for-itself.
The hermeneutical wager that over which, so to speak, as it puts everything on a letter, ie "how what "in which, as it were, is apprehended in advance of facticity, ie the critical nature of being, in terms of understanding which begins the facticity (ie, the character of being on the start betting) is not a inventum, ie not something that you invent or find, but it is something we have in advance, but that "as what" is something that springs (which comes from) a fundamental experience, ie , which in this case arises from a philosophical to be watchful and alert, in which exsistencia meets herself. We call this the exsistencia be-careful philosophical, and that means: it is a be-this-wake that remains vivid in (or lives and feeds on) an original self-interpretation that philosophy itself has given of herself, so that self-interpretation is [in that its originality and radicalism] a decisive possibility of encountering a critical form the exsistencia herself.
The basic contents of this self-interpretation of philosophy, this understanding of philosophy about itself, must be able to put in relief and must indicate in advance. For hermeneutics we speak of that content reads as follows: (1) Philosophy is a form of knowledge that is or is in the same factual life in the form of knowledge which exsistencia factual is started, so to speak, of himself openly and nakedly returning on itself, and mercilessly going to settle on the base rate for it is she that she is being to himself. (2) Philosophy while this philosophy (as understood this radical form of philosophy) is not in any way for custom work and caring for humanity as a whole and the culture of all, much less the exempt once and for all future generations of concern to ask questions, or even to reduce that concern through validity claims that would be out of place. The philosophy is what can be, just as philosophy their "time." "Temporary." Mode of being-now is what works the exsistencia.
But this thing has absolutely nothing to do with being as modern as possible, ie, to engage him grace to what is usually meant by needs and alleged shortcomings. Everything modern is known as {19} artificially drained of their own time and only then gets to have some "effect" (business, propaganda, proselytizing, search applause applause and economy, cultural scam.) That as
what exsistencia, a stay-awake maintained in such terms, it runs itself, ie, character if it is not likely to be calculated in advance and is not intended to humanity in general, anything aimed at an audience, but is determined and decisive exsistencia concrete possibility in each case, ie, the specific factual each case, ie, in each specific factual. To the extent that it does capture, apprehend and bring hermeneutic of facticity apprehended the conceptual grasp, that is, put it in concepts, such a possibility will become more transparent. But "at a time" is spent and consumes itself. Existenz, existing, while the exsistencia historic opportunity, but can be determined in each case has already damaged itself in each case as that which arises is whether the requirement will be present beforehand itself to a philosophical curiosity that seeks to portray. Existenz is never "object" but to be, only in that there is "a life that is, as frost there in a particular life.
And as the stakes or attack is only there in those terms, that is, only exists in such terms, not subject to reason or public speculation or public discussion. As these are merely the preferred means of diverting time the potential impact that might have bet on exsistencia factual. The two requirements today often proclaimed so often and so high, namely: (1) that one should not linger too much on the budget but go on to consider the things themselves (philosophy of the thing), and (2) that budgets must be able to take up the public, so that the view in general (which are visible to all) and that are generally convincing, that is, that budgets have to be as inoffensive as possible, ie, plausible, both demands, say, wrapped themselves with the aura and the appearance of a purely objective absolute philosophy. Masked, but only a cry to the anguish that philosophy produces.
The question of where it belongs then this hermeneutical task within the framework of "the" philosophy, is a very secondary question, which basically irrelevant, if not a question of principle misconceived. The strange coincidence of the title [of the plaintiff to the title of hermeneutics] should not confuse us and lead us to adhere to as empty considerations [a walk to see where to place it within "the" philosophy]. {20}
Hermeneutics, in the absence (while not giving, while not "here") on the exsistencia be awakened (the serdespierta the exsistencia) for the actuality, while this does not happen, I say, is irrelevant. All talk about it is a fundamental and basic misunderstood herself. For my part, I suspect, if I may use this personal observation, that the interpretation is not at all philosophy, but something provisional, which, however, something happens very own peculiar, namely that is not to end it as soon as possible, but it should be delayed as much as possible.
Today we have become so featureless beings and so no bones that we are not able to hold a question and if a doctor can not respondérnosla philosophical, we ran to find another. And such a claim (doctors) can only increase supply. In plain language this is called: increased interest in philosophy.
Hermeneutics is not itself philosophy wants nothing to present to contemporary philosophers (if they deign to consider) an object hitherto forgotten. The secondary that such things do not get attention in the great bustle current philosophy, should not attract attention, when in her than it is mostly (or all efforts are focused on) not to be late or too late for the "resurrection of metaphysics" that "is what is said, begins to emerge, and where only known a concern, namely, to help yourself and help others to achieve via intuition of essences direct friendship with the good Lord to make it as cheap as possible, as comfortable as possible and as profitable as possible.
[Add Heidegger: "nothing to be measured by criteria and frameworks strange and questionable accentuate this as fundamental"]
0 comments:
Post a Comment