Philanthro
Distinguishing between how humans comport themselves towards something and how animals behave.
Fichte talks about Treiben, as well. Freud too, and many biologists like Uk.
The being of the human being consists in possibility rather than the actual.
The animal stays with itself. It is absorbed in itself.
Apprehending x as y, a motif from Being and Time.
When he speaks of interpretation, that human existence is primarily interpretative, to exist is to interpret – he says that you always take something as something. This is what interpreting is fundamentally. To take the hammer as something that can be used for hammering for example. There is always a determinateness in which things appear, which relates one thing to another. So when Heidegger says als he is referring to his analysis of interpretation.
Paragraphs 31-33 of Being and Time – read. Philosophical hermeneutics, but also phenomenology generally.
First there is the precomprehension, basic understanding – and whenever you exist by acting or thinking etc you are laying out some of your preconceived notions that are disclosed in the preunderstanding and this laying out (interpreting) makes something explicit. This doesn’t have to be purely propositional, but is rather related to any kind of acting – because it relies on structures of understanding.
This is exclusive to the human being.
Heidegger was highly critical of the notion of consciousness. Even though he gives many positive gestures to intentionality. His issue with Husserl is that consciousness is primary for him. If you ask Husserlians they’ll say there is no ending to Husserl, whilst Heidegger never even begins an analysis.
The animal lives in its environment but it doesn’t create anything in it. It eliminates thing to be in the environment but doesn’t create its own environment to fit it.
— not passive.
In what is metaphysics, nothing is being for Heidegger. There are some resonances to that.