traptunderice wrote:
I think of selfs, egos, subjects in standard Western traditions as contained and packaged entities. Descartes can come up with his thinking ego outside of the world, Kant has a neatly packaged subject of apperception which constitutes the world (the transcendental object) as the perception of the transcendental object makes possible apperception through synthesis, even Hume's bundle of perceptions is still a neat bundle which if devoid of content would dissolve yet the perceptions which it is made of are perceptions of the world, not the world.
For Heidegger, though, subject and object can't be separated. He takes Kant further to some degree. Rather than having apperception related to transcendental object in a circle constituting the other, Heidegger smears that. Dasein is its possibilities in the world. It is not a list of ontic characteristics or attributes. It is what it does in the world. The concept of Dasein opens up the possibility of Butler, as I'm reading now, to say the subject is nothing except for when it is enacted, through gender, or Althusser to say the subject arise through interpellation of policing or Foucault to say the subject is simply what disciplinary apparatuses inscribe in the body.
The classic line on 42 of the German pagination that Dasein's essence is its existence is crucial. What Dasein is, its essence, is founded upon its existence, how it is in the world, acting and being acted upon. Dasein is always with others in this world; Dasein ontologically is always taking up and discarding possibilities; it is ontological that through these possibilities which Dasein partakes in, Dasein comes to understand itself. Dasein can never be known except through the world and maybe Heidi's refutation of Descartes would come up at that moment. I don't remember it clearly but it's something about substance rather ugh. Contra Berkeley's notion of a perceiving, constituting subject, Dasein is a meaning ascribing subject, a subject which would exist without the world insofar as its thought constitutes the world. The world only gains meaning through Dasein's interaction with it. Dasein is always within a world that is being orientated to Dasein.
Quick ramblings, hope that helps. I spouted that off the top of my head so I could probably be a bit more precise or lucid. Let me know if you want clarification. I mentioned enough moderns but also "post-moderns" so if you knew any of those you could take them up as a comparison. Descartes is the easy target, though, as always I guess. The more contemporary options would be super interesting for a paper insofar as they already reject what you are seeking to explain that Heidegger is rejecting but my personal biases are towards the 20th century theorists.
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this; it is much appreciated. I have a very good idea about Dasein and its characteristics and possibilities. I haven't read any Berkeley and have not really concentrated on post-modernism that much but I know somethings about it, nonetheless (although not enough to write a ten page essay on it, just yet). Yes, Descartes would be the obvious point of discussing this matter but I would rather approach it differently. I am meeting with my professor on Friday so I suppose I can ask for some sources as how to approach it from the modern and "post-modern" way in terms of what books I can use as secondary sources. Thanks again for your brainstorm. You have given me a pointer. Cheers. Approaching it from a Psychological standpoint can also be very interesting.
Plus Thanksgiving break next week, bringing my girlfriend along to meet the fam since things are getting serious, and then back to school for two weeks before the semester's over. Life is good 
