Heidegger's Worlds and Existential Responsibility

Heidegger comments that we all inhabit various worlds. They may be the worlds of students, teachers, businesswomen, artists, or whatever else. We are able to move comfortably in whichever of these worlds we inhabit and will find ourselves awkward in whichever we don't inhabit. For example, Teachers will move comfortably in classrooms, but not in boardrooms.

In addition to feeling comfortable in these worlds, we also help define them. As I blog, I move in the world of bloggers and when I hit 'publish' I will further define/refine what it is to be a blogger. Every world is in a state of existential metamorphoses. This leaves the actors in worlds with some existential responsibility. As the actors actions mold their respective worlds, they have a responsibility to those worlds.

Each of us, then, must make sure that we are being responsible to the worlds we inhabit.

What is a 'thing'?

Only Heidegger can make me think about what a 'thing' is. All information that we get about things is from our senses, so we only have our perceptions. However, I do not want to say that essence is perception. I have typically gone with a Kantian view that all we have is our perceptions; however, there is a 'thing' there that is causing those perceptions. Heidegger points out, however, that what we first see (or hear/feel/etc) is the 'thing-in-itself' and not our perceptions.

The real question seems to be is why (how) we group these perceptions or does the 'thing' come before our perceptions?

Thoughts on the "other sex"

It has occurred to me that the etymology of the ‘other sex’ is always as a part or lesser simulacra of Adam. Adam is the ideal of which the other falls short; after all, Adam is one bite short of God. Whatever such word is used to identify the ‘other sex’ serves largely to delineate it from the status quo of humanity or consciousness or however else you will define this self-awareness. More than delineate it from the status quo, it serves to make it subservient. The ‘other sex’ has no existence on its own as it is etymologically dependent on Adam. As our ability to think is limited by our language, it seems that it is time for a new word to signify this ‘other sex’ as a part of the whole with Adam.