O Da de Da-sein nunca deve ser traduzido como “aqui” ou “aí”, como é habitual nos estudos atuais (por exemplo: ser-aí, estar aqui, being t/here). Heidegger insiste que “Da ≠ ibi und ubi” (GA71) (o Da do Da-sein não é de todo um advérbio locativo: “aqui” ou “aí”). Em vez disso, o Da deve ser sempre interpretado como “abertura” ou “o aberto” no sentido do homem ser lançado-aberto, “(sendo) trazido para a sua abertura, mas não por sua própria vontade” [SZ:284]. “O Da significa abertura apropriada — a clareira apropriada de (i.e., para) ser.” (GA71)
“Da-sein” é uma palavra-chave do meu pensamento e, portanto, a ocasião para grandes mal-entendidos. Para mim, “Da-sein” não significa o mesmo que “Aqui estou eu!”, mas sim — se é que o posso exprimir num francês talvez impossível — “être le-là”. E o le-là é precisamente aletheia: revelação-abertura.
The Da of Da-sein should never be translated as “here” or “there,” as is customary in the current scholarship (for example: being there, being here, being t/here). Heidegger insists that “Da ≠ ibi und ubi” (the Da of Da-sein is not a locative adverb at all: “here” or “there”). Rather, the Da should always be interpreted as “openedness” or “the open” in the sense of man’s being thrown-open, “(being) brought into one’s openedness but not of one’s own accord.” “The Da means appropriated openness—the appropriated clearing of (i.e., for) being.”
“Da-sein” is a key word of my thinking and thus the occasion for major misunderstandings. For me, “Da-sein” does not mean the same as “Here I am!” but rather—if I might express it in a perhaps impossible French—être le-là. And the le-là is precisely ̓Αλήϑεια: disclosedness—openness.
Heidegger speaks of “our question about openness as such (Da-sein),” and he writes that the Da of Dasein
[(should designate the openedness where things can be present for human beings, and human beings for themselves.)]
[Zollikoner Seminare, 156.35–157.3 = 118.22–24: “(
Das Da des Daseins) soll die
Offenheit nennen, in der für den Menschen
Seiendes anwesend sein kann, auch er
selbst für sich
selbst.”
GA27: 136.13–15: “Das
Dasein is dasjenige
Seiende, das so etwas
wie ein ‘Da’
ist. Das ‘Da’: ein
Umkreis von
Offenbarkeit.” Ibid., 137.7–8: “eine Sphäre von
Offenbarkeit.”]
[(. . . being human, as such, is distinguished by the fact that to be, in its own unique
way, is to be this openedness.)]
[Zollikoner Seminare, 157.31–32 = 121.14–15: “das Menschheit (
ist)
als solches ausgezeichnet, auf seine
Weise diese
Offenheit selbst zu sein.”
GA2: 216, note a = 157 note: Draußensein: “
das Da; Ausgesetztheit
als offene Stelle.”]
[(The human being occurs in such a
way that he or she is the “Da,” that is, the clearing of being.)]
[
GA9: 325.20–21 = 248.11–12: “Der
Mensch west so, daß er das ‘Da,’ das heißt die
Lichtung des Seins,
ist.” Zollikoner Seminare 351.14–17 = 281.31–282.1: “Die
Offenständigkeit des Da-seins ‘ist’ das Ausstehen [= sustaining] der
Lichtung.
Lichtung und
Da-sein gehören im vorhinein
zusammen und die bestimmende
Einheit des
Zusammen ist das
Ereignis.”
GA14: 35.23 = 27.33: “(die)
Lichtung des Da-seins.”]
[(The Da refers to that clearing in which things
stand as a whole, in such a
way that, in this Da, the being of open things shows itself and at the same time withdraws. To be this Da is a determination of
man.)]
[
GA45: 213.1–4 = 180.6–9.
GA66: 321.12 = 285.28: “
Das Da lichtet sich im
Da-sein.”]
[( (Ex-sistence) is itself the clearing. )]
[
SZ 133.5 = 171.22: “daß es [= Dasein]
selbst die
Lichtung ist.”
GA66: 328.1–2 = 291.13–14: “Das
Da-sein ist der aus dem
Er-eignis ereignete geschichtliche
Grund der
Lichtung des Seyns.” Italicized in the original.
GA 69: 101.12–13: “Die Lichtung—sein—in sie
als Offenes sich loswerfen = das
Da-sein.” GA 66: 129.5 = 109.7–8: “das ‘Da’, die
Lichtung.” Heidegger will go so far as to say that the Da “gehört zum
Sein selbst, ‘ist’
Sein selbst und heißt darum das
Da-sein”: GA 6:2: 323.14–15 = 218.4–5.]
[(The clearing: the Da—is itself ex-sistence.)]
[“Die ‘Seinsfrage’ in
Sein und Zeit,” 9.23: “die
Lichtung: das Da—ist
selbst das
Dasein.” See
GA14: 35.23–24 = 27.31–33.
GA 3: 229.10–11 = 160.32–33: “
ist der
Mensch das Da, mit dessen
Sein der eröffnende Einbruch in das
Seiende geschieht.”
GA70: 125.12: “(die)
Lichtung des
Da-, die
als Da-sein west.”]
[(The point is to experience
Da-sein in the sense that human being itself is the Da, that is, the openedness of being, in that a person undertakes to preserve it, and in preserving it, to unfold it (See
Sein und Zeit, p. 132f. [= 170f.]).)]
[
GA15: 415.10–13 = 88.18–21: “Es gilt, das
Da-sein in dem
Sinne zu erfahren, daß der
Mensch das ‘Da’, d.h. die
Offenheit des Seins für ihn,
selbst ist, indem er es übernimmt, sie
zu bewahren und bewahrend
zu entfalten.” (Vgl. “
Sein und Zeit,” S. 132f.)]
[(Ex-sistence must be understood as being-the-clearing. Da is specifically the word for the open expanse.)]
[
GA15: 380.11–12 = 69.4–5: “
Dasein muß
als die-Lichtung-sein verstanden
werden.
Das Da is nämlich das
Wort für die
offene Weite.” At
SZ 147.2–3 = 187.13–14 Heidegger speaks of “(die)
Gelichtetheit,
als welche
wir die
Erschlossenheit des Da charakterisierten.”
GA66: 100.30 = 84.11: “Das
Offene der
Lichtung.”]
[(Ex-sistence (das
Da-sein) is the
way in which the open, the clearing, occurs, within which being as cleared is opened up to human understanding.)]
[
GA49: 60.25–27: “Das
Da-sein ist vielmehr die
Weise,
wie das
Offene, die
Lichtung west, in der ‘das Sein’
als gelichtetes dem menschlichen
Verstehen sich öffnet.”]
[(To be—the clearing—to be cast into the clearing as the open = to-be-the-Da.)]
[
GA69: 101.12: “Die Lichtung—sein—in sie
als Offenes sich loswerfen = das
Da-sein.”]
The distinction between ex-sistence as personal/existentiel and ex-sistence as structural/existential (which, unfortunately, Heidegger tends to blur) comes into its own in Heidegger’s discussion of “decision” or “resolve” (Entschluss) in Being and Time § 62. My ex-sistence is always mine alone, and this fact entails that the responsibility for choosing how I am to live rests exclusively with me and with no one else. I have a choice: I can either embrace my dynamic and mortal structure as ex-sistence, along with all that it entails, or I can flee it. When (personal) ex-sistence embraces its (structural) ex-sistence, Heidegger says, one is “authentic,” the self-responsible author of his or her own finite life. When ex-sistence flees its ex-sistence, it is “inauthentic,” insofar as it refuses to fully understand and embrace itself and “become what it already is.”