Talk:Facticity

Heidegger and Facticity
Article says:
 * Heidegger also refers to each person's facticity, as our (the?) having been "delivered over", of our throwness.

Can someone who understands this rewrite the sentence? It seems to be introducing several terms but not explaining what they mean. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Heidegger-scholar, but the start of the chapter about him makes sense to me. Then, suddenly, the article states:
 * In moods, for example, facticity has an enigmatic appearance, which involves both turning toward and away from it. For Heidegger, moods are conditions of thinking and willing to which they must in some way respond. The thrownness of human existence (or Dasein) is accordingly disclosed through moods.

There isn't enough context to follow this part. Can someone clarify? Otherwise, I suggest removing this part, as it's not informative on its own.Wikikrax (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

English
Plainly, it is untrue, as the article claims, that the term "facticity" was first used by Fichte, since Fichte published nothing in the English language (though it is a real English word, since it appears in Chambers' dictionary, defined as "factualness"). Deipnosophista (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article includes the corresponding German word. This is not a wiktionary-entry. The article discusses the term, not the word.Wikikrax (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent usage
The first paragraph under Recent usage begins, "Facticity is a term that takes on a more specialized meaning in 20th century continental philosophy," and it ends, "have taken up the notion of facticity in new ways." Nowhere in between is any clue as to what that meaning, notion, or new ways might be. Admittedly, this is a slippery subject, despite being about facticity, but we should take a shot at it or not drop mere hints. I would take the whole paragraph out, since it actually says little and has no citation, leading to a suspicion of OR, but there may be value in that list of nine philosophers. I would say something about what that meaning is, but I should probably leave that to someone more conversant in all of this than I. Dgndenver (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)