29:10 - no human "nature" but our essence or nature is that we can take on a nature. We grow up in various socialized cultures and "take on" a worldview or a nature. Our essence is our existence, then. "Custom is our nature." What's existence, then? And is this really true? What separates us in terms of categories is that we have this "property" of language or some other aspect or property -- thinking has been one, and rationality, or res cogitans, etc.
I agree, "ausdrücklich" in German can be translated to explicitly but it is more like "expressing something by acting it out"! The "Ausdruck" is the expression.
It manifests awareness of itself explicitly. The professor says he doesn't understand this but aren't we all doing it right now? We are all, including MH explicitly thinking about our being. The peasants likely don't do it but we sure seem to be doing it right now listening to this lecture. He speaks about Dasein falling into it's being. How can a peasant fall into rock bottom being if they have never climbed out of the rock bottom, they are forever preontilogical. It seems to me that the only person who can fall is the one who climbed up and out of the hole or Platonic cave to see being as it is relative to the world and to itself thereby becoming ontological, like the people taking this class I wonder if most people achieve the ontological level of complete knowledge of their being and is it dependent on the underlying genetic composition and brain/intellectual configuration? The formal indication of Dasein? Is this not the state where knowledge begets knowledge downstream from earlier sense perceptive learning? He says MH says "We are always in a way of interpreting Dasein" This is so true and through facticity. Even when we sleep our dreams are interpreting Dasein
My initial issue with your observation is that complete ontological knowledge is never achieved, because our being can't be exhausted. I'm interested in what you've found out that might clarify the above
But to answer your question, it's instrumentality. (c.f. John Dewey Art as Experience). I think H would say the same. If you are taking a walk to the park, it is an end. You are trying to take a walk, it's it's own purpose. If you are going to the park, but just want to get there, whatever is fastest and easiest, by bus or train or car, then the walking part, the transport part, is a means. We really care about the park. When something is reduced to a means it's devalued. Like art students who love to paint going to art school and getting bored and angry, because now they have to paint for scores. In this case the boring part is that they have to learn this for their graduation, they only have one eye on the material itself. To take it a step further we could talk about Will in the Heideggarian and Nietzschean sense (not will as willpower, a muscle in your head, but Will as the thing that unites your being towards something). In Will, the goal emerges out of oneself naturally, and then snaps one's personality into cohesive order along behind it, so the ends and means are united, insofar as the means impacts the end. In other words, if I'm trying to write a new work on philosophy, I need to study Heidegger. Not as a vessel to take me across the river, as though I could read Kant just as well, but as an ineluctable part of my goal. Cheers bud
