Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 2 - Heidegger on the Changeover in Assertions

  • from Part I - Normativity, the Phenomenology of Assertions, and Productive Logic
  • Edited by Filippo Casati, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, Daniel Dahlstrom, Boston University
  • Book:
    Heidegger on Logic
    Published online:
    15 September 2022
    Print publication:
    22 September 2022, pp 34-52

  • Summary

    This chapter examines the connection between Heidegger’s analysis of assertions and the present-at-hand. It argues that Heidegger does not claim that assertions can only intend present-at-hand entities. Only in limiting cases, after a changeover in our understanding of being, are assertions so constrained. There are both textual and phenomenological grounds for this argument. Phenomenologically it is evident that many assertions are part of circumspective and absorbed dealing with equipment. The textual argument lies in an interpretation of Heidegger’s underdeveloped notions of unthematic understanding and the changeover. The chapter draws on Aron Gurwitsch’s phenomenology of thematic fields and argues that the changeover, in Being and Time, functions like a figure–ground switch. An upshot of the argument is that there is no paradox in Being and Time making assertions about entities that are not present-at-hand. It also explains Heidegger’s careful methodological considerations about how to thematize and grasp these entities phenomenologically.