- Casanova
- Fédier
- Emad & Maly
- Rojcewicz & Vallega-Neu
- Original
Casanova
Observação prévia: caso se considere, sem anteriormente devotar uma escuta ao que é dito em Ser e tempo sobre a compreensão de ser, o compreender como uma espécie de conhecimento constatador das “vivências” internas de um “sujeito” e, de maneira correspondente, aquele que compreende como um eu-sujeito, então toda concepção daquilo que se tem em vista com a compreensão de ser estará fadado ao fracasso. Em seguida, ocorrem inevitavelmente as mais toscas interpretações falsas, por exemplo, a de que por meio da compreensão de ser o seer (o que se tem em vista é, além disso, o ente) se tornaria “dependente” do sujeito, de tal modo que tudo confluiria para um “idealismo”, cujo conceito permanece, além disto, obscuro.
Em contraposição a isso, é preciso remeter para a determinação fundamental do compreender como projeto. Nisso reside: trata-se de uma abertura e de um lançar-se e colocar-se para fora no aberto, no qual pela primeira vez o que compreende chega a si como um si mesmo.
Além disto, o compreender como projeto é um projeto jogado, o chegar ao aberto (verdade), que já se encontra em meio ao ente aberto, enraizado na terra, soerguendo-se em um mundo. Assim, o com-preender do ser como fundação de sua verdade é o contrário da “sub-jetivação”, uma vez que superação de toda subjetividade e dos modos de pensar que lhe são determinantes.
No compreender como projeto jogado reside necessariamente, de acordo com a origem do ser-aí, a viragem; o que joga o projeto é um jogado, mas somente na jogada e por meio dela.
Compreender é performance e assunção da insistência que suporta, ser-aí; assunção como sofrimento, no qual o que se fecha se abre como sustentador e vinculante. [GA65PT:255-256]
Fédier
Remarque préalable : si l’on prend – sans prêter l’oreille à ce qui est dit dans Être et Temps sur l’entente de l’être – ce terme d’« entente » comme une sorte de perception prenant connaissance des «vécus» intimes d’un «sujet» (lui-même compris comme un ego), alors il n’y a pas la moindre chance de concevoir comme il faut ce qui est visé avec l’entente de l’être. Les plus grossiers malentendus ne peuvent que se produire, par exemple : croire qu’avec l’entente de l’être, l’estre (et par là, on vise bien entendu l’étant) devient « dépendant» du sujet, et que tout finisse ainsi par un « idéalisme », dont par ailleurs le concept reste passablement obscur.
En contrepartie, il convient d’attirer l’attention sur ceci de fondamental : ici, entendre se détermine comme projeter. En d’autres termes : il s’agit, avec cette projection, d’arriver à ouvrir et à se jeter au-dehors, à s’installer au-dehors dans l’ouvert, au sein de quoi seulement celui qui entend parvient à lui-même en tant que soi.
En outre, entendre, en tant que projeter, est lui-même jeté ; c’est venir en l’Ouvert (en la vérité), qui se trouve déjà au beau milieu de l’étant ouvert, raciné en terre, venant se dresser dans un monde. De la sorte, entendre l’être comme fondamentation de sa vérité, c’est le contraire d’une « subjectification », parce que c’est le surmontement de toute subjectivité et des modes de pensée déterminés à partir de là.
Dans l’entente comme projection jetée se trouve nécessairement (en conformité avec l’origine d’être le là) la volte-face ; le jeteur de la projection est lui-même jeté, mais seulement dans le jet et par lui.
Entendre, c’est accomplir et prendre en charge l’instantialité de l’endurance ; c’est être le là, prendre en charge comme patience, en quoi ce qui tend à se refermer s’ouvre comme ce qui porte et relie. [GA65FR:297]
Emad & Maly
Prefatory Remark: If one takes understanding as a kind of ascertaining recognition of inner “lived-experiences” of a “subject” – and correspondingly the one who understands as an I-subject – without first giving a hearing to what is said about understanding of being in Being and Time, then any comprehension of what is meant by the understanding of being is hopeless. Then the roughest misinterpretations will unavoidably follow – for example, that, through understanding of being, be-ing (and here beings are meant nonetheless) becomes “dependent” on the subject and everything amounts to an “idealism” whose concept still remains in the dark.
In response one has to refer to the basic determination of understanding as projecting-open, which consists in an opening-up and a throwing and putting oneself out into the open, wherein the one who understands first comes to himself as a self.
Besides, understanding as projecting-open is a thrown projecting-open, is coming into the open (truth) that occurs already in the midst of beings that are opened up – as rooted in the earth and rising in a world. Thus understanding of being as grounding of its truth is the opposite of “subjectification,” because it overcomes all subjectivity and modes of thinking determined by subjectivity.
In accordance with the origin of Dasein, the turning (die Kehre) necessarily lies in understanding as thrown projecting-open; the thrower of the projecting-open is a thrown – thrower – but only in and through the throw.
Understanding is enacting and taking over the sustaining inabiding, Da-sein, taking over as under-going (Er-leiden), wherein what is closed off opens itself up as what sustains and binds. [GA65EM:182-183]
Rojcewicz & Vallega-Neu
Preliminary remark: if, without first heeding what was said in Being and Time about the understanding of being, understanding is taken as a kind of determining recognition of the inner “lived experiences” of a “subject” and the one who understands is accordingly taken as an I-subject, then a grasp of what is meant by the understanding of being is doomed to failure. The unavoidable result will be the coarsest misinterpretations, such as the view that the understanding of being makes beyng (beings are actually what is meant) “dependent” on the subject and that everything amounts to an “idealism” (the concept of which, moreover, remains obscure).
To oppose this view, we need to refer to the basic determination of understanding as projection. That means understanding is an opening up and is a projecting of oneself, and a placing of oneself, out into the open realm where in understanding one first comes to oneself as a self.
Furthermore, understanding as projection is a thrown projection, a coming into the open realm (truth) which already finds itself in the midst of opened beings, rooted in the earth and protruding up into a world. Accordingly, the understanding of being as grounding of the truth of being is the opposite of “subjectivation,” since it is the overcoming of all subjectivity and of the modes of thought determined on that basis.
In understanding as thrown projection there lies necessarily the turning, in accord with the origin of Dasein; the projector of the projection is a thrown projector—but only in the throwing and through it.
Understanding is the carrying out and taking over of the withstanding steadfastness; it is Da-sein, and taking over is the undergoing wherein what is self-secluding opens itself as maintaining and binding. (GA65RV)
Original
Vorbemerkung: Nimmt man, ohne zuvor dem in »Sein und Zeit« über das Seinsverständnis Gesagten ein Gehör zu schenken, das Verstehen als eine Art von feststellendem Erkennen der inneren »Erlebnisse« eines »Subjekts« und den Verstehenden entsprechend als Ich-Subjekt, dann ist alles Begreifen dessen, was mit Seinsverständnis gemeint wird, aussichtslos. Dann ergeben sich unvermeidlich die gröbsten Mißdeutungen, etwa daß durch das Seinsverständnis das Seyn (gemeint ist dazu noch das Seiende) vom Subjekt »abhängig« werde und alles auf einen »Idealismus«, dessen Begriff zudem dunkel bleibt, hinauslaufe.
Demgegenüber ist zu verweisen auf die Grundbestimmung des Verstehens als Entwurf. Darin hegt: Es ist ein Eröffnen und Sichhinauswerfen und -stellen in das Offene, in dem erst der Verstehende zu sich als einem Selbst kommt.
Außerdem ist das Verstehen als Entwurf ein geworfener, das ins Offene (Wahrheit) Kommen, das sich inmitten des eröffneten Seienden schon findet, gewurzelt in der Erde, aufragend in eine Welt. So ist Ver-stehen des Seins als Gründung seiner Wahrheit das Gegenteil der »Subjektivierung«, weil Überwindung aller Subjektivität und der von hier bestimmten Denkweisen.
Im Verstehen als geworfenem Entwurf liegt notwendig gemäß dem Ursprung des Daseins die Kehre; der Werfer des Entwurfs ist ein geworfener, aber erst im Wurf und durch ihn.
Verstehen ist Vollzug und Übernahme der ausstehenden Inständigkeit, Da-sezVz, Übernahme als Er-leiden, worin das Sichverschließende als Tragend-Bindendes sich eröffnet. [GA65:259-260]