Printer Friendly

Deconstructing dasein: Heidegger's earliest interpretations of Aristotle's De Anima.

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is no psychology in the modern sense, but rather deals with the being of the human being (or of living beings in general) in the world.--Heidegger, Introduction to Phenomenological Research (1)

Of all beings that are, presumably the most difficult to think about are living creatures, because on the one hand, they are in a certain way most closely akin to us, and on the other they are at the same time separated from our ek-sistent essence by an abyss.--Heidegger, "Letter on Humanism" (2)


THROUGHOUT THE EARLY FREIBURG AND MARBURG SEMINARS and lectures leading to the composition of Sein und Zeit (1927), Heidegger was consistently preoccupied with the guiding question of Aristotle's Metaphysics, "What is being? ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (3) This question which determined the path of Heidegger's thinking does not stand alone in the course of his philosophical development. Rather, Heidegger's investigation into the meaning of being was guided by his introduction to phenomenology beginning with Husserl's Logical Investigations. From his earliest interpretations of Aristotle to his later writings, Heidegger's thinking is illuminated by a fundamental phenomenological insight:
 What occurs for the phenomenology of the acts of consciousness as
 the self-manifestation of phenomena is thought more originally by
 Aristotle and in all Greek thinking and existence as ([TEXT NOT
 REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), as the unconcealedness of what is present,
 its being revealed, its showing itself. That which phenomenological
 investigations rediscovered as the supporting attitude of thought
 proves to be the fundamental trait of Greek thinking, if not indeed
 of philosophy as such. (4)

Heidegger was never to stray far from this originary method of "seeing." Beginning with a 1921 seminar devoted to De Anima, Heidegger embarks upon his first attempt to interpret Aristotle phenomenologically. (5) While the seminar begins by investigating Aristotle's definition of the soul ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as the principle of life, we are left with an enigma (ein Ratsel) regarding how the soul contributes to Heidegger's account of facticity. For Heidegger, the relationship between facticity (facticia) and the soul (anima) is not unique to Aristotle, he first discovered the problem in Augustine's claim that facticia est anima. The human soul is literally "created" or "made" by God. (6) The soul is an artifice and therefore nonoriginary, unnatural, and separate from the eternity of God. This separation from the absolute fullness or plenitude of being is what opens up the possibility for the soul to strive towards the infinite perfection of God. For Augustine, it is also possible to apply this schema to the originary finitude or imperfection of all created things:
 For these lovely things would be nothing at all unless they were
 from Him. They rise and set: in their rising they begin to be, and
 they grow towards perfection, and once come to perfection they grow
 old, and they die: not all grow old but all die. Therefore when
 they rise and tend toward being, the more haste they make toward
 fullness of being, the more haste they make towards ceasing to be.
 That is their law. (7)

When accounting for the transience of all those things created by God, Augustine turns to the corporeality of the senses and the destructive impulse of temptation which leads living things toward their fullness of being and their ceasing to be. Heidegger's 1921 lecture course devoted to Book 10 of Augustine's Confessions develops a reading of facticity that is marked by this troublesome burden of existence (molestia) which develops out of this temptation (tenatio) to experience the pleasures (delectatio) of life. This burden leads to the dispersion (Zerstreuung) of the individuated existence of the soul among the many, "For 'in multa defluximus' [we are scattered into the many], we are dissolving into the manifold and absorbed in the dispersion. You demand counter-movement against the dispersion, against the falling apart of life." (8) Heidegger traces a trajectory from the monistic and authentic sense of being (unum) to the multiple and inauthentic sense of being (multum) reflecting the same relation of the unity of being ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) to its separability ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (9) The dispersion of factical life in its falling away from the origin opens up the possibility for Dasein to choose a possible direction for itself. Factical life forms out of itself a direction which is enacted in the movement of fearing and retreating from (timere) or a taking into oneself and giving oneself over to (desiderare) the burden of existence. (10) This relationality of life to its own dispersion into the many and the consequent taking-up and assumption of this impropriety and nonoriginarity is the only legitimate ground for thinking. During the 1921-22 lecture course, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research, Heidegger describes the burden of factical life as a movement of fallenness and collapse (Ruinanz). Life is marked not by equanimity and repose, but an essential restlessness (Unruh).

Therefore, facticity is to be radically distinguished from the stable presence (Vorhandenheit) or fullness of being in the unity of the one by the movement of its own factical denucleation or dispersion into the manifold. Ruinance is always already informed by an essential emptiness or nullity which informs the very possibility of its existence. Ruinance brings factical life into movedness by opening up life to the possibility of enacting or becoming its own absence. (11) Heidegger's incorporation of the concept of facticity into his philosophical lexicon exhibits an ambivalent movement of oscillation between the Christian and Greek traditions. Throughout the 1922 Aristotle Introduction and the 1923 lecture course, Ontology: Hermeneutics of Facticity, Heidegger begins to develop facticity in an explicitly ontological direction. Facticity as the primary object of phenomenological investigation must moreover retain the originary character of movement ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) insofar as the concrete temporalizing of its being expresses itself in the care (Sorge) for its being. (12) Temporality arises as the distinguishing characteristic of facticity, "The being-there of our own Dasein is what it is precisely and only in its temporally particular 'there,' its being 'there' for a while (in seinem jeweiligen 'Da')." (13) Hereafter, Heidegger will resist the tendency to historically thematize facticity. The problem of facticity is exclusively separated from its anthropological residue. By the composition of Sein und Zeit, facticity describes how Dasein is thrown (Geworfenheit) into its encounter with the Being of entities in the world:
 Whenever Dasein is, it is as a Fact (Faktum); and the factuality
 (Tatsachlichkeit) of such a Fact is what we shall call Dasein's
 facticity (Faktizitat). This is a definite way of Being
 (Seinsbestimmtheit), and it has a complicated structure which
 cannot even be grasped as a problem until Dasein's basic
 existential states have been worked out. The concept of "facticity"
 implies that an entity 'within-the-world' has Beingin-the-world in
 such a way that it can understand itself as bound up in its destiny
 (Geschick) with the Being of those entities which it encounters
 within its world. (14)

Facticity as the riddle of Dasein is indeed enigmatic enough to resist any hastily assumed phenomenological solution. (15) It is with Heidegger's warning in mind that I will approach the problem of facticity as a problem unique to the finitude of all life. Facticity is not fundamentally unique to the lived experience of the human being but is already itself located in nuce within Aristotle's investigation of the soul. Just as Aristotle's definition of the soul as a principle of life is approached by investigating its various attributes, Heidegger does not at this earliest stage explicitly define facticity as a singular term, rather he seeks to make available those elements which constitute it. If being is said in many ways, life too is said in many ways ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). To critically consider both Heidegger's and Aristotle's understanding of life in its many ways opens up the possibility for discovering a motivating source of meaning for the enigmacity (Ratselhatifgkeit) of this word. Hence, Heidegger will investigate the meaning of life ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as a basic phenomenon upon which the interpretations (Greek, Old Testament, the New Testament-Christian, Greek-Christian) of human life are all centered. Throughout the seminars and lectures devoted to Aristotle, Heidegger does not explicitly disclose how life is thrown into the world other than providing a phenomenological description of how the soul is to be moved (Bewegtheit). During the 1922 Aristotle Introduction, Heidegger describes how the being of life functions as a kind of movement:
 This is done in such a way that we first provide an interpretation
 of De Anima with respect to its ontological and logical structure,
 and indeed this itself is carried out on the broader basis of an
 explication of the domain of the being of life as a particular kind
 of movement (Lebensbewegtheit)." (16)

Heidegger's interpretation of De Anima and De Motu Animalium are the biological ground for his understanding of the being of human life as movement. This movement of life only comes to objective presence noetically through the activity of intentionality. While the noetic constitution of intentionality clearly applies to human beings, Heidegger discloses a more primordial constitution to intentionality as an essential directedness towards the world. By distancing himself from an explicitly Husserlian understanding of intentionality, Heidegger becomes increasingly fascinated with an understanding of intentionality as a "living towards something" (Leben auf etwas zu). (17) Originary intentionality is nothing other than the bare condition of striving-out-for and striving-towards the world. Unfortunately, Heidegger's 1922 Aristotle Introduction presents only a schematic introduction to De Anima which was never completed. It is therefore necessary to reconstruct how the capacities of the soul to include sense perception ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), intellect ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), movement ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), nutrition ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and speech ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) contribute to his account of facticity. (18) Heidegger's appropriation of the soul only complicates his understanding of facticity as unique to Dasein and ultimately weakens the ontological boundary distinguishing Dasein from other forms of animal life. This essay reflects upon two central questions which remain problematic throughout Heidegger's oeuvre. First, why should we accord a distinctive ontological privilege to Dasein if the soul functions as the biological ground for its ontogenesis? Secondly, how might we begin to reconceive the original project of the fundamental ontology as a way of overcoming the opposition between Dasein and animal life?


In order to address the first question, I shall begin by considering Heidegger's decision to choose De Anima for applying Husserl's phenomenological method of "seeing" to the Aristotelian corpus. The 1921 seminar which treats the first two books of De Anima is mediated by his reverence for the text as being "phenomenological without the explicit reduction." (19) Heidegger envisioned the seminar as primarily a phenomenological inquiry into the problem of defining the soul ontologically before investigating Aristotle's definition of being ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in Metaphysics 7 and truth ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in Nicomaehean Ethics 6. (20) Heidegger begins the seminar by considering Aristotle's definition of the soul as "the first actuality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of a natural body potentially possessing life ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (21) Throughout the first two books of De Anima, Aristotle defines the soul as a mode of being or actuality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) which has life as its own principle and end. The soul first actualizes the corresponding potential of a natural body by bringing together the disparate components of potential matter to form a unitary and self-subsistent living being. The soul enables the body to enact its own activities of thinking and perception, movement and rest, reproduction and nutrition, growth and decay. After establishing the priority of the soul as the organizing principle of a natural body, Aristotle further qualifies his definition by examining those capacities commonly attributed to life:
 The term "living" has many senses ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII]), but let us say that a thing is living even if it has in
 itself only one of the following: the intellect, the capacity of
 sense perception, the capacity of producing motion and of stopping
 with respect to place, the capacity of moving with respect to
 nutrition, that of deterioration and that of growth. (22)

In De Anima 2, Aristotle distinguishes between the intellect, sense perception, and nutrition as constituting the categories of human, animal, and plant life. However, how does each capacity reflect these respective categories? Heidegger considers how the soul has life by literally "having" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) the capacities of intellect, sense perception, and nutrition. Aristotle's investigation of the capacities of the soul does not attempt to define what life is, but rather attempts to determine the ground ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) by which the soul has life. (23) In doing so, Aristotle is seeking to understand why life belongs to the soul rather than any other thing. Heidegger's 1921 seminar investigates this fundamental connection between the biological capacities of the soul and the ontology of factical life. Heidegger describes life in its most basic terms as a fore-having (Vorhabe). One is always factically thrown into life as a pre-possession of existence. If all living beings share the same primordial ground of being-thrown into life, how is Dasein to be distinguished from the soul if Dasein essentially shares the same ontological attributes as other living beings? (24)

Aristotle claims that we must begin our inquiry into the soul by first seeking the essence of the soul, and secondly, its attributes. However, the essence of the soul is only understood by investigating these attributes, "For when we are in a position to expound all or most of the attributes ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as presented to us, we shall also be best qualified to speak about the essence ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of the soul." (25) In a similar fashion, Heidegger seeks to investigate how the human soul is determined through the concrete possession or "having" of the attributes. What is the nature of the relationship between them? Does one attribute prevail in the constitution of the human soul, the animal soul, or the plant soul? Might their relative unity preclude any hierarchical organization? Heidegger is ultimately concerned with the same aporia confronted by Aristotle, "The attributes of the soul give rise to a problem. Are they attributes of that which has ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) the soul also, or is there any one of them which is proper ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) to the soul? This problem must be settled, but it is not easy." (26) The attributes, with the possible exception of intellect, can not exist without the presence of a body. The body as the origin of these attributes is inseparable from them. During the 1921 seminar, Heidegger investigates this relation between the attributes of the soul and the body by exploring how the body is moved by the affections ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Certain affections of the soul, like anger and fear, cannot exist apart from their own bodily manifestations Heidegger approaches the question of how the body is moved by investigating the essence of the soul enabling the body to be opened to movement. How does the movement of the soul arise in itself, from itself, and out of itself?. Is there an internal mover responsible for the various affections of the body or are the affections to be determined by the presence of an external mover? Indeed, the material presence of the body becomes disclosed not only by investigating the movement of these affections, but by questioning the possibility of their movement, namely, how the affections are originally moved by those entities the soul encounters in the world.

In De Anima 2, Aristotle defines the soul as a principle of animal life ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) determined by sense perception, "for even those beings which have no power to be in motion or to go another place but have the power of sense perception ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) are called 'animals' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and not only 'living things' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (28) Sense perception is constituted by an openness to the world, which is uniquely attributed to animality. This sensibility is an iterability or capacity to be affected by the external environment. Aristotle distinguishes between the senses of hearing, smell, sight, taste, and touch. It is with the capacity of touch that Aristotle most recognizably develops the passivity of sense perception as a phenomenon of corporeality. While the distinguishing attribute of sense perception is touch ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) existing apart from the other attributes, the primary function of sense perception is a being-opened (Aufgeschlossensein) to what is perceived. Sense perception is first and foremost an affection ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) whereby something happens to the one who is perceiving. By being-opened to what is perceived, the body experiences this sense of affection and the concordant vulnerability of exposure to the world. During the 1924 lecture course, "Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy," Heidegger describes sense perception as precisely this way of being-opened to the world, "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is not used in the narrow sense of sensation. Rather, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is used as perception in the sense of having the world present (die Weise des Sie-Dahabens). This is no theoretical observing, but rather a being-opened for something that is around me." (29) The percipient undergoes a change or alteration ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) by taking a stance towards the world and distinguishing between objects as they relate to its position in the world. The activity of sense perception becoming affected by those objects actively moves the living being. This capacity to be altered or acted upon enables the soul to not only passively receive ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) the form of sensible objects through the imagination but to actively distinguish ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) between objects as they are disclosed ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) to sense perception. The imagination mediates between vision and the intellect to produce images that can be inscribed upon the soul. This process is inaugurated with the originary capacity of sense perception to distinguish (abheben) the perceived object as such. (30) Sense perception as an intentional activity conditions how objects in the world become accessible to us. The living being is only able to move about in the world by distinguishing objects from one another. Heidegger underscores the factical nature of sensibility as equiprimordial (qleichursprunqlich) with the "having" of a world. The presence of the world possibilizes my capacity to perceive it. (31)

The capacity of sense perception to be moved by objects and to actively discriminate between them analogously reflects the capacity of the intellect. While sense perception is delimited by the embodiment of a certain passivity and openness to the world, the intellect bears a fundamental ambivalence within itself as a requisite for intelligibility. The intellect possesses the unique capacity to make objects intelligible to the soul by passively becoming these objects and actively generating them, "Intellect in the passive sense is such because it becomes all things, but intellect has another aspect in that it makes all things ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). " (32) Aristotle develops a twofold division of the intellect as simultaneously passive and active. While sense perception is only acted upon by particular sensible objects, the passive intellect is acted upon by an object which is itself a product of the active intellect. The active intellect enables the passive intellect to become the intelligible object insofar as the active intellect possesses its own unique capacity to produce entities by thinking them. Heidegger reductively interprets Aristotle's description of the intellect according to its passive capacity to be acted upon by things ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and thereby neglects to develop extensively its active capacity to make all things. (33) While sense perception is endowed with the capacity to perceive and discriminate between particular entities, only the intellect is able to apprehend the universal. The intellect makes possible the moment of insight by apprehending the universal in the particular. This moment does not involve mediation but the immediacy of direct apprehension. While the senses are dependent upon the existence of a body through the perception of particular objects in the imagination, the intellect is independent of that embodiment with its capacity to apprehend the universal. The intellect discloses the being of an entity or how that entity literally "appears" to us as a phenomenon ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). While sight requires an organ for perceiving an entity, the intellect does not depend upon the physical presence of the entity. Aristotle's description of the active intellect is akin to the divine intellect in its ability to think the entity into existence. However, the finite and discursive nature of the human intellect ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) always entails that we can never simply relate to something as it is in itself, but rather as this or that thing. Both sense perception and intellect affectively disclose the world through their respective activities of perceiving and thinking by opening up a space for the soul to encounter entities. (34)

During the 1924 course, Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy, Heidegger describes how Dasein discloses the world by being-thrown into the pursuit of pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and the avoidance of pain ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (35) Pleasure is equiprimordial with being-in-the-world, "This state of affairs is originally given with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as a fundamental determination of human being." (36) Pleasure orients the being of Dasein as a striving towards the world and striving back towards itself. Aristotle's description of pleasure expresses the fundamental possibility of living beings striving towards their proper end. Living beings are oriented by pleasure as a state of being-towards-living which they most properly seek for the sake of itself. (37) Aristotle compares this activity ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of pleasure to the activity of sight ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Both are intelligible as modes of being that are perfect or complete insofar as they contain their end ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) within themselves,
 This aspect, namely that [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is not a
 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (because it is always already
 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), characterizes it as a
 determination of the presentness of Dasein ... Briefly stated,
 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is nothing other than a "how" of
 being-in-the-world, a determination that is present in
 Sich-befinden as such. (38)

The experience of pleasure is a particular way of being-in-the world. Pleasure is inextricably bound up with the inexorability of need (Not) insofar as existence becomes a pleasure for Dasein. Dasein is relentlessly drawn into the pursuit of pleasure as that which urgently bears its weight against existence. Pleasure temporalizes Dasein by indicating how the incessant passage from the troubled waters of need to the quiet shore of satisfaction opens up the possibility of a worldly significance for existence. Resolute pursuit and flight reflect the modes in which Dasein finds itself alongside (Sein bei) the world. Pleasure orients the possibilities of Dasein falling away from and retrieving its thrown facticity. In accordance with how one finds oneself in the world (Befindlichkeit), pleasure opens up Dasein to the possibility of being-moved by entities in the world. (39) Entities only come to be disclosed out of this originary attunement of pleasure as the most fundamental ontological determination of Dasein:
 IN ASCII] are originally apprehended (verhaftet) with Dasein and
 constitute a fundamental Befindlichkeit--the way in which Dasein as
 it were takes itself along--[a priori] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII] can be characterized as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ...
 Aristotle constantly says that [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as
 well as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are given along with
 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) any concernful dealing
 (Besorgen), with any [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], but all the
 more any perceiving ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), any
 thinking ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), considering ([TEXT NOT
 REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), as well as with contemplation
 (Betrachten), with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Insofar as
 these are fundamental modes of being qua living, [TEXT NOT
 REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is present as an inseparable companion. (40)

Pursuit and flight determine the affections of pleasure and pain. This attunement to either pleasure or pain conditions our concernful dealings with the world and thereby orients the double movement of pursuit and flight, "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are the features that characterize the fundamental possibilities of living as being bei sich selbst. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] are the fundamental movements of Dasein." (41) As the origin of affectivity and receptivity, pleasure discloses the world to Dasein by orienting this striving movement towards pleasure and away from pain. Pleasure as an ontological necessity of existence is the originary ground for being-attuned to the world. (42)


Throughout the early Freiburg seminars and lectures, Heidegger continually returns to two capacities to describe factical life, "that of discriminating ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), whose function is intellect and sense perception, and also that of causing movement with respect to place ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (43) For Aristotle, the soul is always already situated in relation to a place whereby it finds itself being-moved. Heidegger transforms the neo-Kantian terminology employed by Natorp and Dilthey to designate the absolute consciousness of transcendental subjectivity into a pretheoretical and primordial experience characterizing the facticity of being-moved or thrown into the world. The facticity of human life is distinguished by a certain distress (Bekummerung), and concern (Besorgen) about being-thrown into the world. Heidegger's 1921 lecture course, Augustine and Neo-Platonism, reflects his fascination with the facticity of primitive Christian life for the ontogenesis of Dasein. Heidegger incorporates Augustine's description of the soul as nonoriginary or being made by God (facticia est anima) into his previous accounts of factical life by investigating the anxious restlessness produced from being-thrown into the world. The nonoriginarity of the soul must subsequently cope with the dismal aftermath of being created by God, the fallenness from a divine origin, and the concealment of divine truth. (44) Facticity is distinguished by its fallen nature through this movement of dispersion and disintegration (Verfallen). Life encounters the world through the movement of falling away from itself. During the 1921-22 lecture course, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research, Heidegger provides his most extensive analysis of facticity as ruinance; the fundamental movement of life falling away from itself, "it is a movement which by itself forms itself--and yet not by itself but by the emptiness in which it moves; for its emptiness is the possibility of movement." (45) Ruinance is oriented by inclination (Neigung) as the innermost tendency of falling towards and being absorbed in the world because the possibilities of the world become tempting for life and therefore produce an alienation (Entfremdung) which obstructs the possibility of any genuine encounter of life with itself. Life becomes lost in the customs and habits of the present so that in forgetting its thrownness it evades the possibility of recognizing the facticity of its own existence. Only by retrieving thrown facticity through the resolute anticipation of its own finitude does life again become visible to itself. The anticipation of its ownmost (eigentlich) death as a possibility to be chosen temporalizes life by giving it the sight to authentically appropriate its present situation. Human existence as a possibility of life only becomes a question for Dasein by seizing and retrieving life from its fallenness. (46)

During the 1924 lecture course, Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie, Heidegger describes how Dasein is moved to pursue thrown facticity from the fear ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of losing its own being. Heidegger develops his analysis of fear as a fundamental attunement by turning to Aristotle's exposition of fear throughout the Rhetoric and De Anima. Aristotle outlines two possibilities of fear for living beings. (47) The first possibility originates externally from an encounter with an entity in its environment, while the second possibility originates internally from within the living being itself. Fear becomes manifested through the imagination ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). However, fear does not fully appear by directly showing itself in the imagination. Rather, fear announces itself through a series of signs which come toward or bear down upon the living being so as to be dangerous or destructive. Fear gradually discloses itself by producing an overwhelming mood of anticipation as one awaits the arrival of the destructive presence. The phenomenon of fear is exhibited by how one becomes primordially attuned to the object of fear and to the possibility of pain accompanying it. (48) Fear reflects both the flight away from a threatening object or situation and the flight away from oneself and into the world:
 Fear is a depressed mode of existence (Herabgestimmtsein), a
 finding oneself in the world (Befindlichkeit), characterized as
 flight ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), a fleeing from my own
 Dasein, neither a resolute pursuit ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII]) nor an elevated (gehobenes) mode of existence, but a
 retreating from oneself. (49)

Fear is a flight into an accidental or disordered mode of being ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Heidegger characterizes fear as the dispersion of Dasein becoming entangled in the confusion (Verwirrung) of falling into the world. Dasein is always already oriented by the movement of falling constituting the ontological phenomenon of fear.

Aristotle presents a central tension within fear by distinguishing between the expectation of destruction and the hope for preservation. While fear is determined by a moment of expectation when encountering a threatening and destructive situation, the counter-moment to fear is the hope for preservation by struggling to extricate oneself from the situation through flight. The thrownness of Dasein into such a situation initiates this retreat:
 The possibility of preservation must be held to tightly, and in the
 anticipatory or hopeful seizing of this possibility, of perhaps not
 being done in, there moves the characteristic shrinking back from
 what threatens one. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is here
 understood as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. The potential to be
 preserved-in short, to be--is present, and nevertheless I retreat
 in the face of being. This is the fundamental meaning of [TEXT NOT

The threat of pain and suffering discloses the possibility of Dasein fleeing from the fearful entity in the world back towards itself. In the confusion of being-thrown into the world, Dasein is anxiously stretched between the possibilities of fleeing from and pursuing its thrown facticity. By retrieving facticity, Dasein preserves its thrown abandonment to the world as a possibility to be chosen:

"Dasein does not simply abandon itself. Instead, in hoping, it holds unto the possibility of preservation. In this manner, the two moments of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] manifest themselves in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Both are fundamental determinations of being-moved peculiar to Dasein." (51)

In this striving towards or away from the disorder and confusion of being-thrown into and absorbed by the world, Dasein is opened as a being-out-towards the world. This projection of Dasein into its possibilities is the movement of care:

"The basic sense of movement of factical life is caring [Sorgen] (curare). In the directed, caring 'Being-out-toward-something' ['Aussein auf etwas'], the toward-which (worauf) of care is there, present." (52)

The movement of caring is defined by the dealings which Dasein has with its world. These dealings become a concrete method of concern that may eventually culminate in the objectivity of science so that life only further distances itself from the possibility of retrieving its facticity. Care is this movement and countermovement of flight and put suit. Instead of marginalizing flight and pursuit, Heidegger retrieves their enigmatic ambivalence throughout Sein und Zeit by describing Dasein as a thrown projection (geworfener Entwurf). (53)

In De Anima 2, Aristotle introduces the nutritive capacity of the soul as responsible for nourishment, growth, and alteration. Even before providing his definition of the soul as the actuality of a natural body, Aristotle privileges the nutritive capacity as the most fundamental manifestation of life itself, "and by life we mean self-nourishment ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and growth ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and deterioration ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of that body." (54) Aristotle's presentation of the nutritive capacity as subject to the constant metamorphosis of change and transformation is analogous to the movement and countermovement of living beings. The capacity of nutrition to maintain and preserve life is especially relevant to factical life. Nutrition as the distinguishing attribute of plant life is inseparable from this bare "having" of life which binds the other capacities of the soul to a common end:
 Now the capacity of nutrition can exist apart from the other
 capacities, but in mortal beings none of the other powers can exist
 apart from this capacity ... Accordingly, living belongs to (all)
 living things because of this principle ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII]) ..." (55)

Heidegger's earliest seminar devoted to De Anima interprets the capacities of the soul according to this primordial "having" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of life. Facticity is this prior possession (Vorhabe) of an "original something" (Ur etwas) or that which we call "living." Facticity is the originary condition for the descent and dispersion of life away from itself. Unfortunately, Heidegger does not explicitly disclose this primordial ground of bare life or its relation to the capacities of the soul. (56) However, the 1921-22 lecture course, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research, acknowledges that this "having" of life is always already determined by its initial encounter with the world. This "having" always involves the movement of life projecting itself out into the world for its own sake:
 Life begins to build out from this world and for it. Life
 establishes itself following the sense of its projection
 (Vor-nahmen) and of its appropriated pre-possession (zugeeigneten
 Vorhabe). It assures itself with a prepossession and cares for
 itself in explicit or implicit reference to it. (57)

Life develops out of itself only to deteriorate as it moves away from itself. By projecting itself into the world, life subsequently confronts the enactment of its destruction. (58) The constructive and destructive movement of factical life also curiously reflects the natural function of plant life:
 Thus all plants, too, are thought to be living; for they appear to
 possess ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in themselves such a
 capacity ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and a principle ([TEXT
 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) through which they grow and deteriorate
 in contrary directions, for those which are constantly nourished
 and continue to live grow (and deteriorate) not only upwards
 without doing so downwards, but alike in both directions ([TEXT NOT
 REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), indeed in every direction, and they do so
 as long as they are able to take in food. (59)

The movement of dispersion as the falling away of life from itself into the world is the condition for any movement of life returning to itself. Fallenness disperses the purposive unity of life into a multiplicity of possibilities directed toward and concerned with the world. The prestructive organization of life ultimately promotes a false security so that the possibility of any genuine appropriation of thrown facticity becomes lost. Life may become irretrievably absorbed and entangled in its own encounters with entities in the world. (60) The denial of the possibilities which entrench life in the present is necessary for its temporalization. Life strives hyperbolically into the world and eliptically back toward itself as an originary possibility of existence, "The counter-movement (Gegenbewegung), as life's worrying (Bekummerung) about not becoming lost, is the way in which the possible and apprehended authentic being of life temporalizes itself." (61) The movement of return from these encounters with entities in the world is life seizing the possibility of its ownmost existence. (62)

Although Heidegger's 1921 seminar begins and ends with the problem of defining the soul in the first two books of De Anima, Heidegger devotes the majority of the course to Aristotle's definition of being. Heidegger investigates how being as a principle ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and cause ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of life becomes articulated through the capacity of speech ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). If we are to disclose the meaning of being, we must first understand how being is asserted or stated as a definition ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (63) The question of being arises or comes to be out of speaking as a possibility of facticity that must be retrieved in order to make life questionable. The human capacity for speech initiates the retrieval of life from its fallenness by authentically disclosing thrown facticity. Heidegger's origin for the retrieval of facticity is the destruction of a tradition which understands being as being-produced and made-available (Hergstelltsein) as an object:
 The object field which provides the primordial sense of Being is
 the object field of those objects which are produced and used in
 dealings ... That which is finished in the movement of the dealings
 of production ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), that which has
 arrived at its Being-present-at-hand (Vorhandensein), available for
 use-tendency (Gebrauchtenz), is that which is." (64)

Being-produced is only a derivative category which does not take into account how we encounter being in its significance by perceiving and speaking about entities in an environing world. During the 1924 lecture course, Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy, Heidegger explicitly develops the significance of the capacity of speech for Dasein. As the only living being with the capacity for concepts, Dasein provides meaning or being to entities in the world through speech, "A [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is a [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], a specific being-in-the-world, which meets with the present world in its proper character of being-present (Da-character), it addresses it in its proper being." (65) Dasein encounters entities in the world as beings by always speaking about them as this or that thing ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). The primordiality of sense perception which discloses entities as necessarily true by virtue of how they appear to us is distinguished from speech which always takes the entities that appear by asserting or speaking about them and thereby risking the possibility of falsity. This possibility for speech is literally its way of disclosing entities as beings. However, Dasein is first always already thrown into the world, "Dasein's primary orientation (Orientierung)--the illumination of its being in the world--is not a knowing, but instead a finding oneself (Sich-befinden) ... Only within Sich-befinden and being in the world so characterized is the possibility of speaking about things given." (66) Facticity presents Dasein with this possibility. Just as Dasein is presented with the two-fold possibility of fleeing or pursuing thrown facticity, speech is oriented by a similar fundamental ambivalence. Heidegger investigates Aristotle's definition of speech as a limit which orients the human being by choosing between the possibilities of enactment and nonenactment thereby distinguishing that which is said from that which remains unsaid. Every saying or asserting is a bringing together or inclusion ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and a taking apart or exclusion ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). The bringing together or included possibility that an object is white is always posited together with the excluded possibility that the object is not white. (67) Likewise, Dasein brings the same ambivalent possibilities to the facticity of being-thrown into the world. Dasein is confronted with an existential choice to either authentically retrieve thrown facticity or remain inauthentically absorbed and dispersed in fallenness. The originary indeterminacy of both possibilities is presented as a condition of thrown facticity. Facticity discloses existence as a possibility to be chosen. Aristotle characterizes the choice of authentic Existenz according to the theoretical life ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of tarrying alongside ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) the world in contemplation as the most proper mode of being fully present. (68) However, this conception of Existenz removes the human being from its encounter with entities in the world and contradicts the concernful being-alongside (Sein bei) the world illuminating much of the Aristotelian corpus, particularly De Anima which investigates life according to this originary "having" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of the capacities of the soul:
 This character of being in the living is the soul which is
 characterized by the fact that it is a [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII]; its being is characterized by being-possible [Moglichsein]
 ... The manifold: nourishing, perceiving, thinking, willing soul,
 these diverse manners of potential-being (Seinkonnens) of what is
 alive are not functions that function peacefully with one another
 such that what would matter would be merely to determine these
 connections precisely--instead one must recognize the grounding of
 these diverse possibilities in a definite, layered primordiality
 (Ursprunglichkeit) of the potential-being. (69)

While the capacities are distinguished by virtue of their respective activities, these capacities also mutually interrelate to one another as potential ways of being. Are we to distinguish the capacities of the manifold as fundamentally different ways of being that cannot be adequately reconciled with one another? How are we to interpret the primordiality of these manifold capacities if not by recourse to the bare condition of their potential-being which unites them?


If we are to rigorously examine Heidegger's debt to Aristotle, we must return to his retrieval of the capacities of the soul for the ontogenesis of Dasein. What is Heidegger's original motive for grounding facticity in relation to the capacities of biological life? In De Anima, Aristotle understands the soul as a way of being-open to entities other than itself. The soul is thrown into the world which makes possible its openness to entities disclosing themselves. (70) There are certainly different stages of receptivity which demarcate the soul of the plant from the soul of the animal and the soul of the human being. However, how are we to distinguish the ways of being-open unique to the plant, the animal, and the human if there is not a singular or unitary sense of being to guide our inquiry? If our definition of being-open according to both Aristotle and Heidegger is indeed manifold, then the capacities of the soul are also to be considered as exhibiting a similar manifold nature. Throughout Sein und Zeit, Heidegger fails to consider whether these capacities of the soul deserve further hermeneutical explication. Heidegger returns to De Anima only to describe the human soul as constituted by sense perception and intellect:
 Aristotle says, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. "The soul of the
 human being, is in a certain way, entities." The soul which makes
 up the being of the human being has aesthesis and noesis among its
 ways of being, and in these it discovers all entities, both in the
 fact that they are, and in their Being as they are--that is, always
 in their Being. (71)

Heidegger neglects to investigate either the capacity of sense perception to discover entities or the capacity of the intellect to disclose the existence of entities as they are. Even more glaringly, Heidegger fails to defend his decision to ontologically prioritize the soul of Dasein over all other entities worthy of ontological clarification. This unbridgeable separation between fundamental ontology and biology betrays an anxiety which haunts the remainder of Sein und Zeit. (72) By the 1929-30 lecture course, Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude, Heidegger returns to the question of biological life to effectively isolate the domain of the animal life from the domain of human existence:
 The animal possesses this being-open (Offenheit) in its essence.
 Beingopen in captivation is an essential possession of the animal
 ... the possession of being-open is a not-having, and indeed a
 not-having of world, if the potentiality for revelation of beings
 as such does indeed belong to the world. (73)

Heidegger distinguishes nonhuman animals from Dasein by the "having" and "not-having" of world. While Dasein is "world-forming" (weltbildend) and therefore has world, the animal is "poor in world" (weltarm) in the sense of being deprived of the world that is only accessible and hence open to Dasein. The being-open of the animal to its environment by captivation (Benommenheit) is to be demarcated by this "not-having" of world.

While Heidegger's later pronouncements may appear disheartening for any rapprochement between animal life and human existence, his earliest interpretations of the soul throughout the early Freiburg and Marburg lectures remain the original source for considering how the task of rethinking the fundamental ontology might begin. The first step towards questioning the boundary between animal life and human existence entails investigating how the soul is factically thrown into the world. The thrownness of the soul reflects the receptive openness of sense perception and intellect to discover and disclose entities as beings. Through their receptivity, sense perception and intellect fulfill a homogeneous function within the soul. However, both display a certain heterogeneity in their aporetic relation to the other capacities. The intellect shares with sense perception the capacity of pure and simple perceiving, yet this immediacy is called into question once we begin to consider the role of the intellect as mediating the capacity for speech. If the intellect is situated within the domain of speech, how can it retain its nondiscursive immediacy to grasp the universal as its distinguishing attribute? If the boundaries separating the capacity of the intellect from the capacity of speech cannot be sufficiently demarcated, then ultimately the boundary separating animal life from human existence becomes an even more perplexing question. This ambiguity is particularly telling when we examine Aristotle's description of foresight or prudence ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as applying to both humans and animals, "It is in view of this that people say that some beasts too are prudent, namely those which appear to have the power of foresight ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) with regard to their own way of life." (74) Foresight is characterized by an intentional structure of knowing one's way around in the world in order to distinguish between competing alternatives and deliberate about a future decision. If some animals indeed possess foresight and the ability to deliberate between competing alternatives, what genuine condition remains to privilege human existence? Perhaps the most problematic assimilation of the capacities of the soul occurs between sense perception and speech. Both possess the capacity to disclose and discover entities towards which they are directed. Throughout De Anima, Aristotle even describes how sense perception possesses its own unique mode of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]:
 Similarly, a sense ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) too is
 affected ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) by a thing which has
 color or flavor or sound, not insofar as that thing is signified by
 its name, but insofar as it is such-and-such (i.e. colored or
 flavored or sounding) and according to the corresponding formula

Heidegger privileges speech as the distinctive essence of Dasein, yet fails to investigate the relationship between speaking and perceiving, namely, how speech is ultimately always already informed by sense perception. If this capacity for speech depends upon the capacity of sense perception we share with members of other animal species, we must begin to reconfigure our understanding of the primacy of speech as exclusive to the human domain. (76) Perhaps speech is no longer the distinguishing attribute of the human species but a capacity shared with other animals for the sake of living well. In the final paragraph of De Anima, Aristotle alludes to the capacities of sense perception for living a happy life, "An animal possesses the senses ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ... not for the sake of existing, but for the sake of living well ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (77) For Aristotle, human existence both includes and excludes animal life. Human existence is separated and opposed to animal life with the capacity of speech while always already maintaining a relation to animal life with the capacity of sense perception. (78) While speech may seem to exclude animal life, speech is only a possibility of facticity or being-thrown into the world. The difference between human existence and animal life is a difference interior to facticity itself. Facticity is the originary openness which binds both humans and animals together in their finite receptivity to the world. At the most primordial level, one must begin to understand the factical possibility of being-affected ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as concordant with world disclosure. The phenomenon of being-affected only arises from the incomplete openness and imperfection of living beings as the most fundamental indication of their finitude. Both human and animal beings are essentially incomplete as their ownmost capacity to be. Likewise, the essential capacities which constitute their existence are themselves incomplete by being exposed and opened up to the world. With the capacities of sense perception and speech, living beings are thrown into the world as the embodiment of their finitude and thereby open to disclosing the world through the movement of concealment and unconcealment ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (78) It is not insignificant that during a 1931 lecture devoted to Aristotle's Metaphysics [THETA] 1-3, Heidegger returns to this relation between sense perception and speech separating human existence from animal life:
 We must above all adhere to what Aristotle presents as fact: that
 indeed the animal is ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--in the
 manner of bringing out. And just as little as we are allowed to
 shove aside the developed meaning of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
 ASCII] in the sense of conversance. For the matter surely demands
 that we do not deny [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to the animal
 as it now stands--or else leave the question open. And this is just
 the position that Aristotle takes unambiguously at De an. [GAMMA]
 9, 432a30f.: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. "No one may easily
 settle with regard to the ability to perceive, whether this is a
 capability without conversance or a conversant capability." This
 caution with regard to deciding and questioning must even today
 remain for us exemplary, irrespective of the further question of
 where the essential boundary runs between animal and human. (80)

For a critical moment, Heidegger begins to rethink the essential opposition between human existence and animal life which has plagued the history of metaphysics and moreover the history of his own thought. How are we to determine that the animal is "poor-in-world" and deprived of originary facticity if the animal does indeed possess something akin to speech? Are the capacities for speech within the human and the animal too distinct to be considered in their unity? Heidegger's admission of the capacity of the animal to possess speech raises a series of ontological questions which deserve further investigation regarding how we might begin to understand the facticity of animality. (81) What are the potential consequences for rethinking the project of the fundamental ontology according to this enigmatic admission of animal being? To think with and against Heidegger in this other beginning is to retrieve the possibility of facticity as the originary ground of his thinking. Perhaps such a retrieval might also begin to cultivate a new ethos which affirms and respects the radical finitude of all life.

Santa Clara University

(1) Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Phenomenological Research, trans. Daniel Dahlstrom (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 4. References to Heidegger's lecture courses will generally be to the Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1976--), here 17:6 (hereafter GA). English translations of GA will be provided when available followed by the volume number and page number of the German edition.

(2) Martin Heidegger, Pathmarks, ed. William McNeill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 248 (GA 9:157).

(3) Aristotle, Metaphysics 7.1.1028b2-4, trans. Hugh Tredennick (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933), 312-13. Heidegger's interest in Aristotle's Metaphysics stems from his earliest readings of Franz Brentano's dissertation, Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles (Freiburg: Herder, 1862).

(4) Heidegger's 1963 autobiographical essay, "My Way to Phenomenology," rightfully acknowledges his indebtedness to Aristotle: "However, the clearer it became to me that the increasing familiarity with phenomenological seeing was fruitful for the interpretation of Aristotle's writing, the less I could separate myself from Aristotle and the other Greek thinkers. Of course, I could not immediately see what decisive consequences my renewed occupation with Aristotle was to have." In Martin Heidegger, On Time and Being, trans. Joan Stambaugh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 78.

(5) Heidegger's lectures and seminars devoted to Aristotle during the early Freiburg-Marburg period include SS (summer semester) 1921 seminar: "Phenomenological Practicum Relating to Aristotle's De Anima;" WS (winter semester) 1921/22 lecture: "Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research;" SS 1922 lecture: "Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to Aristotle: Ontology and Logic;" WS 1922/23 seminar: "Practicum: Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics 6, De Anima, Metaphysics 7);" SS 1923 seminar: "Phenomenological Practicum for Beginners in Conjunction with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics;" WS 1923/24 seminar: "Phenomenological Practicum for Advanced Students, Aristotle's Physics 2;" SS 1924 lecture: "Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy;" and SS 1924 seminar: "The High Scholastics and Aristotle." An English list of these lectures may be found in: Theodore Kiesel, The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). German text of these lectures may be found in: Helene Weig Lecture Notes 1920-1949, Stanford University Archives.

(6) Martin Heidegger, The Phenomenology of Religious Life, trans. Matthias Fritsch and Jennifer Gosetti Ferencei (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), 131-2 (GA 60:180-81). The 1921 seminar devoted to Aristotle's De Anima occurs during the same semester as Heidegger's lecture course on Augustine and Neoplatonism. During a 1923 lecture course, Heidegger refers to Augustine's gloss of Genesis 1:26 in De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber: "Et dixit Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram/And God said, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness'"; Martin Heidegger, Ontology: Hermeneutics of Facticity, trans. John van Buren (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 18 (GA 9:23). As Giorgio Agamben writes: "In Latin, facticius is opposed to nativus; it means qui non spontefit, what is not natural, what did not come into Being by itself"; Giorgio Agamben, "The Passion of Facticity," Potentialities: Collected Essays in the History of Philosophy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 189.

(7) Augustine, Confessions, trans. Frank J. Sheed (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), 58. See also the Latin text and commentary: "quae tamen nulla essent, nisi essent abs te. quae oriuntur et occidunt et oriendo quasi esse incipiunt, et crescunt ut perficiantur, et perfecta senescunt et intereunt: et non onmia senescunt, et omnia intereunt, ergo cum oriuntur et tendunt esse, quo magis celeriter crescunt ut sint, eo magis festinant ut non sint: sic est modus eorum"; Confessions, ed. and comm. James O'Donnell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 39.

(8) Heidegger, The Phenomenology of Religious Life, 151-2 (GA 60:205).

(9) The SS 1921 seminar, "Phenomenological Practicum Relating to Aristotle's De Anima," presents Aristotle's account of the ontologically independent status of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as a living individual thing and therefore a composite, at once determinate and indeterminate. While its determinate or formal character indicates its concrete presence, the indeterminate or material character of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is an indication of its transitory finitude: "We describe one class of existing things as substance ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and this we subdivide into three: (1) matter ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), which in itself is not an individual thing ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]); (2) shape ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) or form ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) according to which something is called an individual thing, and (3) the composite of the two [i.e. matter and form]." Aristotle, De Anima 2.1.412a6-9, trans. W.S. Hett (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936), 66-7. Helene Weiss Lecture Notes 1920-1949, Stanford University Archives.

(10) During the SS 1921 lecture course Augustine and NeoPlatonism, Heidegger introduces the Latin term curare. This relational sense of curare analogically reflects the constitution of desire ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in Aristotle's De Anima: "It is enacted as timere and desiderare, as fearing (retreating from) and desiring (taking into oneself, giving oneself over to)." Heidegger, The Phenomenology of Religious Life, 153 (GA 60:206).

(11) "A formally indicative definition would thereby determine ruinance as follows: the movedness (Bewegtheit) of factical life which 'actualizes' (vollzieht) and 'is' factical life in itself, as itself, for itself, out of itself, and, in all this, against itself (Ontological sense of 'is'--not yet determined)." Martin Heidegger, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research, trans. Richard Rojcewicz (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 98 (GA 61:131). The theme of nullity (Nichtigkeit) will inform the second division of Sein und Zeit. Facticity is this potentiality for being-as-a-whole in Dasein's being-toward its own death.

(12) Heidegger, "Phanomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles (Anzeige der hermeneutischen Situation) [1922]" in Dilthey Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Geschichte der Geisteswissenschaften 6 (1989): 237-69. My translation of the 1922 Aristotle Introduction (hereafter "AI") follows the pagination from the original manuscript provided in the Dilthey Jahrbuch. At the conclusion of the essay Heidegger returns to the problematic of intentionality as already conceived in Aristotle: "What is shown here is how 'intentionality' comes into view for Aristotle and indeed as 'objective,' i.e., as a How of the movement of life that is somehow 'noetically' illuminated when it goes about its dealings. Beings in their basic aspect of being-moved, i.e. their 'being-out-for' and 'going-toward' (Aussein auf etwas) constitute the forehaving (Vorhabe) and condition (Abhebbarkeit) that makes it possible for us to bring intentionality into relief in accord with how it becomes explicit in Aristotle and for its part makes visible the basic characteristic of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]." AI, 49.

(13) Heidegger, Ontology: Hermeneutics of Facticity, 24 (GA 63:29).

(14) Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit (Tubingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 1979), 56. Hereafter SZ. Translations of SZ are my own unless otherwise indicated. I have consulted existing translations where available and my choice of terms often reflects standard practice.

(15) "In jedem Verhalten und Sein zu Seiendem als Seiendem a priori ein Ratsel liegt [In any way of comporting, oneself towards beings as beings, there lies an apriori enigma]." SZ, 4. "Stimmung, mood, brings Dasein to 'the That of its There' ('das Dass seines DA') in a way that stares back at it with an inexorable enigmaticity (in unerbittlicher Ratselhaftigkeit engegenstarrt." SZ, 136. For an extensive analysis of the role of enigmacity in Sein und Zeit, see: Simon Critchley, "Enigma Variations: An Interpretation of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit," Ratio No. 2 (2002): 154-75.

(16) AI, 49.

(17) At the earliest stage of his career during the war-emergency semester or Kriegsnotsemester (KNS) of 1919, Heidegger effectively distances himself from Husserlian intentionality by developing an understanding of comportment without the I. "It was said above that the characterization which reads as 'I comport myself' into the simple experience of the question is inappropriate and inapplicable because in immediate observation I do not find anything like an T, but only an 'ex-perience [Er-leben] of something,' a 'living towards something' [Leben auf etwas zu]." Martin Heidegger, Towards the Definition of Philosophy, trans. Ted Sadler (London: Athlone Press, 2002), 57 (GA 56/57:68).

(18) Much of the secondary literature regarding Heidegger's interpretation of Aristotle neglects to investigate this originary relationship between facticity and the soul. See particularly Franco Volpi's Heidegger e Aristotele (Padua: Daphne Editrice, 1984), Theodore Sadler's Heidegger and Aristotle: The Question of Being (London: Athlone Press, 1996), William McNeill's The Glance of the Eye: Heidegger, Aristotle, and the Ends of Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), Catriona Hanley's Being and God in Aristotle and Heidegger (Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield, 2000), Charlotta Weigelt's The Logic of Life: Heidegger's Retrieval of Logos (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International, 2002), and Walter Brogan's Heidegger and Aristotle: The Twofoldness of Being (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).

(19) Herbert Spiegelberg, "Husserl to Heidegger: From a 1928 Freiburg Diary by W.R. Boyce Gibson," in Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 2 (1971): 73.

(20) Helene Weiss Lecture Notes 1920-1949, Stanford University Archives.

(21) Aristotle, De Anima 2.1.412a28-9, trans. W. S. Hett, 68-9.

(22) Ibid., 2.2.413a22-5, 74-5.

(23) Agamben addresses how the principle of ground ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) orients the project of Aristotle's Metaphysics: "What is clearly at work here is the exemplary principle of Aristotle's thought, the principle of ground. This principle consists in reformulating all questions that have the form of 'what is it?' as questions that have the form of 'through what thing (dia ti) does something belong to something else?' The 'dia ti,' the 'through-what,' or 'why,' we read in Metaphysics 7.16.1041all, 'is always to be sought in the following fashion: through what thing does something belong to something else?' To ask why (dia ti) a thing is said to be a living thing is to seek the ground through which life belongs to this thing." Agamben, "Absolute Immanence," in Potentialities, 231.

(24) The significance of "having" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is introduced during the 1924 lecture course, Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophic, as Dasein being-moved ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) by pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and pain ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]): "Pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is nothing other than a fundamental determination of being-in-the-world (fundamentale Bestimmung des In-der-Welt-seins). Insofar as such a being is in the world, I have (habe) an expression for being aware of it. Pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is how one finds oneself with this awareness (Aufschluss) about my being-in-the-world. I have at the same time a determination of my being (Bestimmung meines Seins), a way of my being (Weise meines Seins). This phenomenon is nothing other than when we ask the question: 'How is it going?' (Wie geht's?)" Martin Heidegger, Grundbegriffe der aristotelisehen Philosophic, ed. Mark Michalski (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002) (GA 18:244). Translations of GA 18 are my own unless otherwise indicated.

(25) Aristotle, De Anima 1.1.402b23-5, trans. W. S. Hett, 12-13.

(26) Ibid. 1.1.403a3-5, 12-15.

(27) "So the corresponding definitions will be as follows: anger, for instance, is a certain motion of such a body or bodily part or faculty of that body caused by such and such a mover for the sake of such and such an end ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). And because of these facts, it becomes evident that it belongs to the physicist to investigate the soul, either every [kind of] soul or such [which is inseparable from a body]." Ibid. 1.1.403a26-9, 14-17.

(28) Ibid. 2.2.413b3-5, 74-5.

(29) GA 18:52.

(30) Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics alludes to the mutual capacity of sense perception and the intellect to perceive the universal: As soon as one individual perception ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) has come to a halt in the soul, this is the first beginning of the presence there of the universal ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) because although it is the particular that we perceive ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), the act of perception involves the universal ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), e.g. man, not 'a man Callias.' What is perceived is the individual, but the perception is in relation to the whole." Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 2.24.100a15-b2, trans. Hugh Tredennick and E.S. Forster (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), 258-9.

(31) GA 18:238.

(32) Aristotle, De Anima 3.5.430a14, trans. W. S. Hett, 170-1.

(33) "There appear, then, to be at least two (possible) movers here, desire ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and the intellect ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) ... both of these appear to have the power of causing movement ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in space." Ibid. 2.10.433a10, 186-7.

(34) Aristotle expresses the priority of understanding the capacities of nutrition, intellect, and sense perception according to their function or activity: "If one is to state what each of these is, e.g., what the thinking or the sentient or the nutritive capacity is, prior to this, he should state what thinking or sensing (or taking in food) is; for activities or actions are prior in formula to the corresponding capacities ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Ibid. 2.4.415a17-23, 84-5.

(35) Heidegger transforms Aristotle's assertion that all living beings pursue pleasure as the fundamental purpose of living into Befindlichkeit, how Dasein finds itself thrown into the world: "All (living beings) pursue, are out toward, a [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], a Befindlichkeit, and for the most part not toward the one they believe they are striving for, not toward that which men say they are after. Rather, all are out toward the same--what they are after is living." GA 18:243.

(36) Ibid., 114.

(37) Aristotle defines pleasure as a movement of the soul: "Let it be assumed that pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is a certain movement of the soul ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), a sudden and perceptible settling, down into its normal state ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]); and that pain the opposite ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). If such is the nature of pleasure, it is evident that which tends to produce ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) the disposition ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) we have just mentioned above is pleasant, and that which destroys it ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) or produces the contrary settling down is painful ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.11.1369b34-1370a4, trans. John Henry Freese (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 114-15. Pleasure also functions as an activity of the soul: "Now seeing, is thought to be complete at any interval of time ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), for it needs no thing which, when it comes into being later, will complete the form ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of seeing. Pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), too, resembles a thing such as seeing, for it is a whole ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 10.4.1174a15-19, trans. Hugh Rackham (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 590-1.

(38) GA 18:244-6.

(39) Aristotle contrasts the complete activities of sight and pleasure to the incomplete movements of losing weight, learning, walking, and building: "For every motion is incomplete ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), as in losing weight, learning, walking and building. These then are motions, and they are incomplete; for one is not walking and at the same time has walked, nor is he building and has built, nor is a thing being generated, and has been generated, nor is it being moved ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and has moved ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), but they are distinct; and moving ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] another thing is distinct from having moved ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) another thing. On the other hand, the same thing has seen ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and is seeing ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) at the same time." Metaphysics 9.6.1048b29-35, trans. Treddenick, 448-49.

(40) GA 18: 247-8.

(41) Ibid., 247.

(42) "Again, pleasure ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) has been from infancy with us all; so it is difficult to rub off this feeling, ingrained ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as it is in our own life. We also regulate our actions, some of us more and others less, by pleasure and pain. Because of this, then, it is necessary for our whole study to be concerned with pleasures and pains; for to enjoy or to be pained rightly or wrongly has no small effect on our actions ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]." Nicomachean Ethics 2.3.1105a1-8, trans. Rackham, 82-3.

(43) Aristotle, De Anima 3.9.432a15-17, trans. W. S. Hett, 180-1.

(44) The Phenomenology of Religious Life provides an extensive analysis of Book 10 of Augustine's Confessions which questions the relation of the human soul to divine truth. See especially [section] 10 "Of the beata vita," chapters 20-23; 141-48 (GA 60:193-201). For an overview of the course, see Otto Poggeler, Der Denkweg Martin Heideggers (Pfullingen: Neske, 1963) and Oskar Becker, Dasein and Dawesen (Pfullingen: Neske, 1963).

(45) Heidegger, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle, 98 (GA 61:131).

(46) The problem of facticity is first and foremost a [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] problem: "It is therefore a matter of pressing on interpretively to a movement which constitutes a genuine movedness of life, in which and through which life exists, and from which, life is determinable in its own sense of Being. This movement makes it intelligible how a being such as life is to be brought genuinely into one of its available, appropriating modes of possession (Problem of facticity, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] problem)." Ibid., 87 (GA 61:117).

(47) Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.5.1382a ff.; and Aristotle, De Anima 1.1.403a17 ff.

(48) Gadamer eloquently captures the embodied nature of fear: "... [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is not just a state of mind, but as Aristotle says, a cold shudder that makes one's blood run cold, that makes one shiver. In the particular sense in which [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is connected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in this definition of tragedy, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] means the shiver of apprehension that comes over us for someone whom we see rushing to his destruction and for whom we fear." Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Continuum, 1999), 130.

(49) GA 18: 250.

(50) Ibid., 260.

(51) Ibid.

(52) AI, 6.

(53) "Situatedness (Befindlichkeit) and understanding (Verstehen) characterize as existentials the primordial disclosedness (Erschlossenheit) of Being-in-the-world. By way of having a mood (Gestimmtheit), Dasein 'sees' possibilities, it already has a mood in every case. The projection (Entwurf) of its ownmost potentiality-for-Being (eigensten Seinkonnens) has been delivered over (uberantwortet) to the Fact (Faktum) of its thrownness (Geworfenheit) into the 'there' (Da). Has not Dasein's being become more enigmatical (ratselhafter) now that we have explicated the existential constitution of the Being of the 'there' in the sense of thrown projection (geworfenen Entwurfs)? It has indeed. We must first let the full enigmatical character of this Being emerge, even if all we can do is come to a genuine breakdown (scheitern zu konnen) over its solution (Losung) and to formulate anew the question about the Being of thrown projective Being-in-the-world." SZ, 148.

(54) Aristotle, De Anima 2.1.412a14-15, trans. W. S. Hett, 66-7.

(55) Ibid. 2.2.413a32-14b2, 74-5.

(56) Agamben compares the capacity of the soul to preserve itself with the capacity of the intellect to think itself: "When Aristotle defines the intellect (nous) by its capacity to think itself, it is important to remember that he has already considered a self-referential paradigm, as we have seen, in his discussion of nutritive life and its power of self-preservation. In a certain sense, thought's thinking itself has its archetype in nutritive life's self-preservation." Agamben, "Absolute Immanence," Potentialities, 301.

(57) Heidegger, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle, 89 (GA 61:119-20).

(58) Heidegger's explication of factical life also reflects Holderlin's novel, Hyperion, which presents the metamorphosis of plants as a metaphor of life. Although she does not relate facticity to plant life, Elaine Miller eloquently captures the rhythmic movement of progression and regression characterizing plant life: "Plants lack self-identity and through their growth embody the simultaneous drives of desire and resistance. Because of the cycle of constant metamorphosis, a plant cannot come back to itself as itself, since what it 'is,' bodily speaking, will have fundamentally altered. There can be no going out and returning to the same 'I,' if 'I' can be said, even hypothetically, of a plant." The Vegetative Soul: From Philosophy of Nature to Subjectivity in the Feminine (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), 85-6.

(59) Aristotle, De Anima 2.2.413a26-31, trans. Hett, 74-5.

(60) Heidegger's Memorial Address presented in honor of the German composer Conradin Kreutzer concludes with an adage from the German poet Johann Peter Hebel: "If releasement (Gelassenheit) toward things and openness to the mystery awaken within us, we then should arrive at a path that will lead to a new ground and foundation. In that ground the creativity which produces lasting works could strike new roots. Thus in a different manner and in a changed age, the truth of what Johann Peter Hebel says should be renewed: We are plants which whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not--must with our roots rise out of the earth in order to bloom in the ether and bear fruit." Martin Heidegger, "Memorial Address," in Discourse on Thinking, trans. John Anderson and E. Hans Freund (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 57.

(61) AI, 13.

(62) Throughout the existential analytic of Sein und Zeit, Heidegger explains how the structure of our understanding is "had" by always being "settled" or "arranged" beforehand: "In every case this interpretation is grounded in something we have in advance-in afore-having (Vorhabe). As the appropriation of understanding, the interpretation operates in Being towards a totality of involvements which is already understood--a Being which understands." SZ, 150. For a further discussion of the role of "fore-having" in Heidegger's early writings, see Charlotta Weigelt, The Logic of Life: Heidegger's Retrieval of Aristotle's Concept of Logos, 140-3.

(63) To state or assert something is nothing other than to state its definition ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) or the essence ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of a thing in which a thing issaid to be by virtue of itself ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]): "Thus, there is an essence ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) only of those things whose formula ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is a definition ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." Metaphysics 7.4.1030a9-10, trans. Tredennick, 322-3.

(64) AI, 26.

(65) GA 18:40.

(66) Ibid., 262.

(67) The following exerpt examines the contribution of Heidegger's analysis of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to the movement of Dasein: "In the oral version of the course, Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik (February 27 1930) Heidegger said that diairesis seen as human transcendence, 'pulls us asunder as it were, and grants us a stretching ahead, takes us away into the possible ...' But at the same time the human being returns from that transcendence to entities so as to know them in terms of possibility, i.e., 'so as to allow the possible--as what empowers the actual--to speak back to the actual in a binding way' ... binding or bonding it: synthesis." Thomas Sheehan, "Hermeneia and Apophansis: The early Heidegger on Aristotle," in Heidegger et l'idee de la phenomenologie (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 1988), 80.

(68) Heidegger distinguishes the finite contingency of ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] from the eternal and divine nature of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] constitutive of the movement of a pure-beholding or voile: "first as pure and simple perceiving, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is in its genuine movement when it has given up all concern for orienting beings in certain directions and only perceives. Second, as this perceiving, it is a movement that, in having arrived at its end insofar as what it is able to perceive in a pure and simple manner now stands before its gaze, not only does not cease, but rather now--precisely as having arrived at its end--really is movement for the first time." AI, 38.

(69) Heidegger, Introduction to Phenomenological Research, 224-5 (GA 17:295).

(70) "For to sense is to be affected in a certain way ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." Aristotle, De Anima 2.11.424al, trans. W. S. Hett, 134-5.

(71) SZ, 14.

(72) "In the order of possible understanding and interpretation, biology as the 'science of life' is rooted in the ontology of Dasein, although not exclusively in it. Life has its own kind of being, but is essentially accessible only in Dasein. The ontology of life takes place by way of a privative interpretation. It determines what must be the case if there can be anything like just-being-alive (Nur noeh leben). Life is neither pure objective presence, nor is it Dasein. On the other hand, Dasein should never be defined ontologically by regarding it as life (ontologically undetermined) plus something else." SZ, 49-50.

(73) Martin Heidegger, The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, and Solitude, trans. William McNeill and Nicholas Walker (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 269-70 (GA 29/30:391-2). See also William McNeill, "Life beyond the Organism: Animal Being in Heidegger's Freiburg Lectures 1929-1930," in Animal Others: Continental Philosophy and the Status of Non Human Animal Life, ed. H. Peter Steeves (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 197-248; and Giorgio Agamben, The Open: Man and Animal (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).

(74) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 6.7.1141a27-29, trans. Rackham, 343-4.

(75) Aristotle, De Anima 2.12.424a23-25, trans. W. S. Hett, 136-7.

(76) "Obliquely, and in a fragmentary fashion, in the margins of his main discourse, Aristotle seems to outline a questioning of human specificity with respect to other animals. This does not mean that human uniqueness is denied--but that it is questioned precisely as one tries to delineate it, that the specifically human mode of animality remains in and as question, that its boundaries are transgressed precisely as they are traced and present themselves in their dynamic shifting." Claudia Baracchi, "Toward a Reconfiguration of the Aristotelian Interpretation," in Epoche 7, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 237.

(77) Aristotle, De Anima 3.13.435b20-1, trans. W. S. Hett, 202-3.

(78) Heidegger is surely not the last contemporary philosopher to treat Aristotle's [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] distinction. Agamben's Homo Sacer provides a genealogical history of the distinction in Arendt and Foucault before its culmination in Agamben's own bio-politics. "The fundamental categorial pair of Western politics is not that of friend/enemy but that of bare life/political existence, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], inclusion/exclusion. There is politics, because man is the living being, who in language, separates and opposes himself to his own bare life and, at the same time, maintains himself in relation to that bare life in an inclusive exclusion." Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 8.

(79) Heidegger returns to an investigation of the capacities of the soul during his 1931 lecture course, Aristotle's Metaphysics [THETA] 1-3: On the Essence and Actuality of Force, "The [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], just like that of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]-the openness of beings, and in a special manner the perceptibility of things." Martin Heidegger, Aristotle's Metaphysics [THETA] 1-3: On the Essence and Actuality of Force, trans. Walter Brogan and Peter Warnek (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 168 (GA 33:196). After juxtaposing Aristotle with Protagoras, Heidegger concludes: "Aristotle was not capable of comprehending, no less than anyone before or after him, the proper essence and being of that which makes up this between--between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as such and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as such--and which in itself brings about the very wonder that, although it is related to self-reliant beings, it does not through this relation take their self-reliance away, but makes it possible for such being to secure this self-reliance in the truth." Ibid., 173 (GA 33:202).

(80) Ibid., 107 (GA 33:126).

(81) "On this point, I am leaving aside the difficult passage (De an. B12, 424a26ff.) where [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]is directly designated as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] . We should understand [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in this passage neither merely as relationship, nor simply as reason or discourse in the sense of language; rather, what is in fact meant by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is the perceiving exploration of ..., and the conversant relating to ..., the relation which takes cognizance of its surroundings, the relation to what presents itself in the surroundings as lying opposite, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]." Ibid., 108 (GA 33:127).

Correspondence to: Department of Philosophy, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Philosophy Education Society, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hayes, Josh Michael
Publication:The Review of Metaphysics
Article Type:Critical essay
Geographic Code:4EUGE
Date:Dec 1, 2007
Previous Article:Hyacinth Gerdil's anti-emile: a prophetic moment in the philosophy of education.
Next Article:Heidegger's hidden path: from philosophy to politics.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |