trechos – 4
” Therefore it is not the case that objects are at first present as bare realities, as objects in some sort of natural state, and that they then in the course of our experience receive the garb of a value-character, so they do not have to run around naked. This is the case neither in the direction of the experience of the surrounding world nor in the direction of the approach and the sequence of interpretation, as if the constitution of nature could, even to the smallest extent, supply the foundation for higher types of objects. On the contrary, the objectivity, “Nature”, first arises out of the basic sense of the Being of the objects of the lived, experienced, encountered world. “
” Life, as caring, lives in a world and, in the manifold ways of the corresponding relations, actualizations, and maturations, cares for the objects encountered in experience at any particular time and cares for the encounters themselves. The object of the care is not the meaningfulness as a categorial characteristic but, instead, is in each case something worldly which finds its corresponding objective expression and which life itself forms. Meaningfulness is not experienced as such, explicitly; yet it can be experienced. The ‘can’ possesses its own specifical categorial sense; the transition from explicitness to non-explicitness is, in an eminent way, ‘categorial’ (interpretation of the categories!). Meaningfulness becomes explicit in the proper interpretation of life with respect to itself, and thence we can first fully understand what it ‘is’ and ‘means’ to live factically ‘in’ meaningfulness. ”
Martin Heidegger, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle, pg. 68.
Deixe uma resposta