Is There a Puzzle About How Authentic Dasein Can Act?: A Critique of Dreyfus and Rubin on Being and Time, Division II
Is There a Puzzle About How Authentic Dasein Can Act?: A Critique of Dreyfus and Rubin on Being and Time, Division II
复制标题
关于真实的此在如何行动存在一个谜题吗？：德雷福斯和鲁宾对《存在与时间》第二部分的批判
DOI：
10.1080/00201740500320104
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
William F. Bracken
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
William F. Bracken
德雷福斯和鲁宾对《存在与时间》第二部分的评论提出了三个与本真性的可能性密切相关的难题：（1）此在如何能够选择成为本真的，（2）本真的此在如何能够选择接受任何特定的可能性，（3）任何事物如何能够对本真的此在产生影响？他们认为海德格尔对前两个难题有一个令人信服的答案，但他们发现他对第三个难题的答案是“间接的，不完全令人信服的”（D&R，第332页）。 我认为，他们应该发现海德格尔的答案比“不完全令人信服”更糟糕的第三个难题，鉴于他们的解释，他的帐户的焦虑，他们声称他在回应前两个难题的答案是不支持的文本。然后，我表明，困惑产生于德雷福斯和鲁宾的解释海德格尔的焦虑帐户的扭曲。一旦扭曲被识别，谜题就迎刃而解了。
Dreyfus and Rubin's commentary on Division II of Being and Time raises three closely related puzzles about the possibility of authenticity: (i) how could Dasein ever choose to become authentic, (ii) how could authentic Dasein ever choose to take up any particular possibility, and (iii) how could anything matter to authentic Dasein? They argue that Heidegger has a convincing answer to the first two puzzles, but they find his answer to the third “indirect and not totally convincing” (D&R, p. 332). I argue that they should find Heidegger's answer to the third puzzle far worse than “not totally convincing”, given their interpretation of his account of anxiety, and that the answers they claim he has in response to the first two puzzles are not supported by the text. I then show that the puzzles arise from distortions in Dreyfus and Rubin's interpretation of Heidegger's account of anxiety. The puzzles dissolve once the distortions are identified.