David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 38 (4):423 – 430 (1995)
In their debate over my interpretation of Heidegger's account of das Man in Being and Time, Frederick Olafson and Taylor Carman agree that Heidegger's various characterizations of das Man are inconsistent. Olafson champions an existentialist/ontic account of das Man as a distorted mode of being?with. Carman defends a Wittgensteinian/ontological account of das Man as Heidegger's name for the social norms that make possible everyday intelligibility. For Olafson, then, das Man is a privative mode of Dasein, while for Carman it makes up an important aspect of Dasein's positive constitution. Neither interpreter takes seriously the other's account, though both acknowledge both readings are possible. How should one choose between these two interpretations? I suggest that we choose the interpretation that identifies the phenomenon the work is examining, gives the most internally consistent account of that phenomenon, and shows the compatibility of this account with the rest of the work
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Havi Carel (2007). Temporal Finitude and Finitude of Possibility: The Double Meaning of Death in Being and Time. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (4):541 – 556.
Carleton B. Christensen (2012). The Problem Ofdas Man—A Simmelian Solution. Inquiry 55 (3):262-288.
David Egan (2012). Das Man and Distantiality in Being and Time. Inquiry 55 (3):289-306.
Philip Darbyshire, John Diekelmann & Nancy Diekelmann (1999). Reading Heidegger and Interpretive Phenomenology: A Response to the Work of Michael Crotty. Nursing Inquiry 6 (1):17-25.
Similar books and articles
Frederick A. Olafson (1996). Heidegger on Presence: A Reply. Inquiry 39 (3 & 4):421 – 426.
Taylor Carman (2003). Heidegger's Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in Being and Time. Cambridge University Press.
Kevin Aho (2007). Gender and Time: Revisiting the Question of Dasein's Neutrality. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 12 (1):137-155.
Pierre Keller & David Weberman (1998). Heidegger and the Source(s) of Intelligibility. Continental Philosophy Review 31 (4):369-386.
Yoko Arisaka (1995). Heidegger's Theory of Space: A Critique of Dreyfus. Inquiry 38 (4):455 – 467.
Frederick A. Olafson (1994). Individualism, Subjectivity, and Presence: A Response to Taylor Carman. Inquiry 37 (3):331 – 337.
Edgar C. Boedeker Jr (2001). Individual and Community in Early Heidegger: Situating Das Man, the Man-Self, and Self-Ownership in Dasein's Ontological Structure. Inquiry 44 (1):63 – 99.
Edgar C. Boedeker Jr (2001). Individual and Community in Early Heidegger: Situating Das Man , the Man -Self, and Self-Ownership in Dasein's Ontological Structure. Inquiry 44 (1):63 – 99.
Frederick A. Olafson (1994). Heidegger la Wittgenstein or 'Coping' with Professor Dreyfus. Inquiry 37 (1):45 – 64.
Taylor Carman (1994). On Being Social: A Reply to Olafson. Inquiry 37 (2):203 – 223.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads95 ( #13,462 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #21,225 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?