Universidad del Claustro de Sor Juana

Colegio de Humanidades
Filosofa
Hermeneutica
Ivn Vera
8vo semestre
ngel Mena Gallardo
9 de marzo de 2016

Disertacin: Heidegger
The significance of Being and Time for hermeneutics stems from the fact that Heidegger
radicalized the Diltheyan notion of understanding as a "category of life" into an
"existentiale" (existential category), and thereby undercut the previous methodological
discussions in the human sciences.
State-of-mind is one of the existential structures in which the Being of the 'there'
maintains itself. Equiprimordial with it in constituting this Being is understanding.
If we Interpret understanding as a fundamental existentiale, this indicates that this
phenomenon is conceived as a basic mode of Dasein's Being. On the other hand,
'understanding' in the sense of one possible kind of cognizing among others (as
distinguished, for instance, from 'explaining'), must, like explaining, be Interpreted as an
existential derivative of that primary understanding which is one of the constituents of the
Being of the "there" in general.
To say that in existing, Dasein is its "there," is equivalent to saying that the world is
'there'; its Being-there is Being-in. And the latter is likewise 'there,' as that for the sake of
which Dasein is.
Dasein is not something present-at-hand which possesses its competence for something
by way of an extra; it is primarily Being- possible.
Asamodal category of presence-at-hand, possibility signifies what is not yet actual and
what is not at any time necessary.
On the other hand, possibility as an existentiale is the most primordial and ultimate
positive way in which Dasein is characterized ontologically.
Possibility, as an existentiale, does not signify a free-floating potentiality-for- Being in
the sense of the 'liberty of indifference' (libertas indifferentiae). In every case Dasein, as
essentially having a state-of-mind, has already got itself into definite possibilities.
Dasein is the possibility of Being-free for its ownmost potentiality-for- Being. Its Beingpossible is transparent to itself in different possible ways and degrees.
This 'knowing' does not first arise from an immanent self-perception, but belongs to the
Being of the "there," which is essentially understanding.
Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein's own potentiality-for-Being; and it is so

in such a way that this Being discloses in itself what its Being is capable of.
As a potentiality-for-Being, any Being-in is a potentiality- for-Being-in-the-world. Not
only is the world, qua world, disclosed as possible significance, but when that which is
within-the-world is itself freed, this entity is freed for its own possibilities.
Why does the understandingwhatever may be the essential dimensions of that which
can be disclosed in it always press forward into possibilities? It is because the
understanding has in itself the existential structure which we call "projection.
Projecting has nothing to do with comporting oneself towards a plan that has been
thought out, and in accordance with which Dasein arranges its Being.
Projection always pertains to the full disclosedness of Being-in-the-world; as potentialityfor-Being, understanding has itself possibilities, which are sketched out beforehand
within the range of what is essentially disclosable in it.
Because understanding, in every case, pertains rather to Dasein'sfull dis- closedness as
Being-in-the-world, this diversion of the understanding is an existential modification of
projection as a whole.
In understanding the world, Being-in is always understood along with it, while
understanding of existence as such is always an understanding of the world.
We must, to be sure, guard against a misunderstanding of the expression 'sight.' It
corresponds to the "clearedness" [Gelichtetheit] which we took as characteriz- ing the
disclosedness of the "there." 'Seeing' does not mean just perceiving with the bodily eyes,
but neither does it mean pure non-sensory awareness of some- thing present-at-hand in its
presence-at-hand.
As existentialia, states-of-mind and understanding characterize the primordial
disclosedness of Being-in-the-world. By way of having a mood, Dasein 'sees'
possibilities, in terms of which it is. In the projective disclosure of such possi- bilities, it
already has a mood in every case.
But in the first instance, even if we are just to bring into view the everyday kind of Being
in which there is understanding with a state-of-mind, and if we are to do so in a way
which is phenomenally adequate to the full disclosedness of the "there," we must work
out these existentialia concretely.

Leer a Heidegger es una faena de unos cuantos privilegiados/iniciados. En el sentido

wittgensteineano, el mundo y mi lenguaje no me alcanzan para entender algo como For
the sake of wich. Resulta coherente creo que es lo vislumbrable- entonces, poner las
posibilidades ontolgicas al mismo nivel que las posibilidades del entendimiento:
<<Being in the world is disclosed as such, and this disclosedness we have called
understanding>>. La complejidad o para algunos, pisaverdez- caracterstica de la

escritura heideggereana, lo eleva all, donde el sol nos deslumbra; este ngel del lenguaje
arroja luz al mundo sobre sus sbditos y subordinados. Esto me parece un tanto
delesnable, sin embargo, al poner el horizonte en vista a la posibilidad, la teora da un
giro alentador. Ese horizonte imposible es el Dasein, este nos posibilita a seguirlo, y slo
en su bsqueda se encuentra su posibilidad positivia: <<possibility as an existentiale is
the most primordial and ultimate positive way in which Dasein is characterized
ontologically>>; y adems: <<Dasein is the possibility of Being-free for its ownmost
potentiality-for- Being. Its Being-possible is transparent to itself in different possible
ways and degrees>>.
Estara bastante bien discutir en clase si el Dasein est eternamente anclado a s
mismo; si posibilitar todas las posibilidades nos llevar al Dasein mismo. Tambin no
alcanzo a crear distancia entre el concepto espritu de Hegel y Dasein de Heidegger.
Finalmente, Being-in-the-world es lo mismo a Dasein, el Being in the world proyecta y
el Dasein entiende? Hay diferencia entre el claro y distinto cartesiano y el sight
heideggereano?