在—此与事实状态:“基础存在论”之为“事实状态的解释学”

Being-there and Facticity:Fundamental Ontology as Hermeneutics of Facticity

本文主要的论点是,海德格尔的两个独特术语,事实状态(Faktizität)与在—此(Da-sein),拥有共同的所指,并且这两个术语的含义也有内在的联系。它们的含义是“意义”与“意义对解释性理解的敞开”所共同建构的统一体。实际上,这两个要素共属一体,无法被独立出来。其中的第二个要素,意义对解释性理解的敞开,是一个源初的事实——在海德格尔看来,我们人类向来就总是这一事实。概言之,那两个术语的指称就是我们自己向来总是的那种存在者,“解释性理解”本身就是我们自己所是的存在者的存在方式。本文分为两个部分,第一部分是对基础存在论的解释,第二部分是对事实状态的解释学的解释,意在表明在—此与事实状态之间、存在论与解释学之间、基础存在论与事实状态的解释性之间的同一性。本文的研究进路是批评性的重构,因此在整个研究中,我将不断地把海德格尔的各种术语还原为“意义”和“解释”,从而表明所有这些看起来难以理解的奇怪术语(阿多诺称之为“黑话”)其实都可以从这两个简单的词上得到理解。本文将通过疏解海德格尔对洛维特的回应进行展开。

The main argument in my essay is that the denotation of Martin Heidegger's two distinctive terminologies,Faktizitat and Da-sein,is actually the same thing,and the connotations of these two terms have an inner link.Their denotation is the unity consisted of meaning and the disclosure of meaning to interpretative understanding.Actually speaking,the two elements of the unity belong to each other and cannot be individualized.The second element,the disclosure of meaning to interpretative understanding,is the primordial Factum,which in Heidegger's view is exactly what we human beings in each case are.So generally speaking,the denotation of the two terms is the being that we ourselves always are.The inner link of their connotations is the interpretative understanding.which is just the“how”of the“Be-ing”of the being that we ourselves are.My project in this essay is to show the identity between Da-sein and Faktizitat,Ontologie and Her-meneutik,F undamentalontologie and Hermeneutik der Faktizitat.I di-vide my project into two divisions,each of which is devoted to one part of my investigations,that is,first,the explication of the Fundamental-ontologie and second,the explication of Hermeneutik der Faktizitat.My study approach is“critical reconstruction”.So though out the whole investigation I have tried to reduce Heidegger's various terminol-ogies into two simple terms,meaning and interpretation,to show that Heidegger's“jargons”(Adorno's word)are far more intelligible than theyseem to be. The speeific way I taketo;articulate all thosementioned above is to interpret Heidegger's brief but profound response toKarl Lowith's eriticism.