“On Liberty” Now Officially Has Two Authors - Daily Nous
An edition of On Liberty published this month is the first to officially name Harriet Taylor Mill as a co-author alongside John Stuart Mill. The new volume is edited by Piers Norris Turner (Ohio State), Jo Ellen Jacobs (Millikin), Helen McCabe (Nottingham), Lilly Osburg (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology), Michael Schefczyk (KIT), and Christoph Schmidt-Petri (KIT), and is published
I haven't actually looked at Leviathan since I was maybe nineteen? (?) It's great!
Hobbes is great, isn't he
Gonna take a break from this to get back on the political economy grind - will try to return to Division Two before too long!
I think the correct response to all this is just to not worry about it. Heidegger can think that there's no Being without Dasein if he wants, that's a him problem, not a me problem lol
This is more strongly idealist even than Kant, I think, since Kant seems to think the thing-in-itself can be properly subject-independent, whereas Heidegger is very explicit that there's no Being without Dasein. 🤷
The concluding section of Division One is quite strongly idealist, fwiw - a form of transcendental idealism, basically, but with Heidegger's successor-concepts to the Kantian categorical synthesis, etc. Heidegger flatly says that 1) there's no truth without Dasein, and 2) there's no Being without truth. Paradoxically, then, we can (I take it) think of entities as existing independently of human cognition/action, but we can't think of Being as independent of Dasein.
Ok, done with Division One. Onto Division Two, which I gather has the stuff about temporality in it, which is why I'm actually reading the book.
Page 236: "Dasein is always 'beyond itself', not as a way of behaving towards other entities which it is *not*, but as a Being towards the potentiality-for-Being which it is itself. This structure of Being, which belongs to the essential 'is an issue', we shall denote as Dasein's "Being-ahead-of-itself"."
They should at least have organized things so that the Type I / Type II errors distinction and the System 1 / System 2 distinction had some intuitive connection for mnemonic purposes imo
