What happened to the Heideggerians?

[mosher]

But do we all agree that there is no Dasein after death - either immediately, or even with the resurrection of the body … because there is no longer time

No. For H. it doesn’t seem as if time is simply kronos. If there is a state after bodily death then there is still some type of time. Therefore, if it is the temporality of Dasein that makes it Dasein then death would not be sufficient to end Dasein. However, if Dasein hinges upon H. notion of possibility then I would agree that after death there is no Dasein.

I’m no expert on the prelapsarian state, but it seems to me that it would include the knowledge of the command, “Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden; on the day in which you eat of its fruit you shall surely die.”

[Talk of “them and their children” suggests to me that you are referring to a counter-factual elaboration of the prelapsarian state, and I don’t see how this could actually be relevant.]

Yes, we are being very speculative here. If we take the Thomistic notion of the state of the Kosmos prior to the fall death would have existed among natural things but not for man. Thus, in the state before the fall they may have known about the concept of death but it would not have had any meaning, in the Heideggerian sense of meaning.

This issue also comes up with the afterlife. What happens immediately after death, without my body? … and with the bodily resurrection at the end of the world? …,

Yes, this is not simply a Christian issue. Plato and any number of other thinkers who were not Christians would have this same concern. Resurrection is uniquely a Christian problem but the afterlife is more universal.

 

[levinas12]

No. For H. it doesn’t seem as if time is simply kronos. If there is a state after bodily death then there is still some type of time. Therefore, if it is the temporality of Dasein that makes it Dasein then death would not be sufficient to end Dasein. However, if Dasein hinges upon H. notion of possibility then I would agree that after death there is no Dasein.

Yes, this is not simply a Christian issue. Plato and any number of other thinkers who were not Christians would have this same concern. Resurrection is uniquely a Christian problem but the afterlife is more universal.

By chronos, do you mean clock time (inauthentic time) … for Heidegger, chronos is dependent upon primordial temporality (conditioned by Sein-zum-Tode) … the latter is associated with kairos … so we’re boxed into a corner … I think this is what you meant by “H. notion of possibility” which includes the possibility of no longer having any possibilities … maybe Heidegger is incompatible with the Christian perspective … .

 

[Betterave]

No. For H. it doesn’t seem as if time is simply kronos. If there is a state after bodily death then there is still some type of time. Therefore, if it is the temporality of Dasein that makes it Dasein then death would not be sufficient to end Dasein. However, if Dasein hinges upon H. notion of possibility then I would agree that after death there is no Dasein.

I’m not sure about this one. I suppose there is still temporality after death, and why not possibility too? Inasmuch as fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit, perhaps there is even something like Angst?

Yes, we are being very speculative here. If we take the Thomistic notion of the state of the Kosmos prior to the fall death would have existed among natural things but not for man. Thus, in the state before the fall they may have known about the concept of death but it would not have had any meaning, in the Heideggerian sense of meaning.

I don’t see why that is - could you elaborate? What sense of meaning?

 

[mosher]

I’m not sure about this one. I suppose there is still temporality after death, and why not possibility too? Inasmuch as fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit, perhaps there is even something like Angst?

I don’t see why that is - could you elaborate? What sense of meaning?

1. I would agree with the possibility of your notions. But, this is exactly the problem, right? If the factical reality of death is not also the factical reality of the end of all possibilities for Dasein, then it can’t have its primordial existential character. In other words, it wouldn’t be a real problem, on a conceptual one. The existential reality would not be grounded in the real, i.e., in the world. It would significantly lose the potency that H. provides it.
2. What I mean by ‘meaning’ is something personal not a general fact in the world. So, let me expand my problematic:

Assume not fall from the Original State.
Adam & Eve & Children would have knowledge of death.
They would have this knowledge as something external to themselves.
Death is something that happens to the other animals but not man.
Death, then, does not enter into the lived experience of being a human person.
Death, then, is not a primordial characteristic of personal being (Dasein).
Only when man is able to die does death become part of his lived reality.
For H. what is important about death is that it is the most uncanny thing.
We all know that we will one day die but we can’t grasp what that means.
But, Adam and Eve, et al., would not have died at some point.
Therefore, death is not uncanny because it doesn’t factor into the life of man at this point.
Death is always a possibility for something else never for man.
Therefore, it is not uncanny, it is curious.