Individual and community in early Heidegger: Situating Das man, the man-self, and self-ownership in dasein's ontological structure
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 44 (1):63 – 99 (2001)
In Sein und Zeit, Heidegger claims that (1) das Man is an 'existential' i.e. a necessary feature of Dasein's Being; and (2) Dasein need not always exist in the mode of the Man-self, but can also be eigentlich, which I translate as 'self-owningly'. These apparently contradictory statements have prompted a debate between Hubert Dreyfus, who recommends abandoning (2), and Frederick Olafson, who favors jettisoning (1). I offer an interpretation of the structure of Dasein's Being compatible with both (1) and (2), thus resolving the Dreyfus-Olafson debate. Central to this resolution is the distinction between das Man and the Man-self. Das Man is one of three existential 'horizons', or fields of possibilities; the other two horizons are the world and death. At any time, Dasein encounters entities in one of two basic modes: either by 'expressly seizing' possibilities of the horizon, or by occluding these possibilities. These modes are 'existentiell', i.e. features of Dasein's Being that are possible, but not essential. Self-ownership and the Man-self are the two basic existentiell modes of being oneself, i.e. projecting everyday possibilities of oneself appropriated from the horizon of das Man. What differentiates these two modes is the stance one takes to the possibility of death, the existential horizon of being oneself.
|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
R. Matthew Shockey (2011). What's Formal About Formal Indication? Heidegger's Method in Sein Und Zeit. Inquiry 53 (6):525-539.
Similar books and articles
Edgar C. Boedeker Jr (2002). Phenomenological Ontology or the Explanation of Social Norms?: A Confrontation with William Blattner's Heidegger's Temporal Idealism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 84 (3):334-344.
Frederick A. Olafson (1994). Individualism, Subjectivity, and Presence: A Response to Taylor Carman. Inquiry 37 (3):331 – 337.
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.
Mariana Ortega (2005). When Conscience Calls, Will Dasein Answer? Heideggerian Authenticity and the Possibility of Ethical Life. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13 (1):15 – 34.
Yoko Arisaka (1995). Heidegger's Theory of Space: A Critique of Dreyfus. Inquiry 38 (4):455 – 467.
Pierre Keller & David Weberman (1998). Heidegger and the Source(s) of Intelligibility. Continental Philosophy Review 31 (4):369-386.
Taylor Carman (1994). On Being Social: A Reply to Olafson. Inquiry 37 (2):203 – 223.
Frederick A. Olafson (1994). Heidegger la Wittgenstein or 'Coping' with Professor Dreyfus. Inquiry 37 (1):45 – 64.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (1995). Interpreting Heidegger on Das Man. Inquiry 38 (4):423 – 430.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #194,924 of 1,790,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #323,925 of 1,790,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?