On appelle agréable tout ce qui engendre le plaisir, et particulièrement le plaisir physique, comme est dit désagréable la non-satisfaction d’une tendance, d’où résulte déplaisir ou peine ou douleur. L’esthétique les emploie plutôt substantivement et pour elle la question est de déterminer si l’agréable et le désagréable ont part au jugement de goût ou s’ils doivent en être exclus.

---

So, in order to understand the concrete context, we must note the following: if the ἡδύ is encountered and cultivates disposition, then the ἡδύ is encountered by an animal that already is in the mode of finding-itself in the world. A definite disposition already is there in advance, such that the cultivation of a definite disposition means, from the side of the ἡδύ, that way of being disposed to which something matters through the ἡδύ, transposes itself dispositionally into a new way of being disposed determined through the ἡδύ—κατάστασις: (1) “transposing itself” into a disposition; (2) this “disposition” itself, into which it is brought. The justification for this dual translation, I take from a basic context of living. All modes of living are characterized by the fact that, here, the mode of being is a matter of finding-oneself in the mode of being-in-a-disposition-and-bringing-oneself-therein. I only find myself disposed in the genuine sense by bringing-myself-there, and thus this dual-character must be brought to expression. I enter into gladness only by virtue of the fact that I am glad. There can only be so many things around me that are gladdening, on the condition that I am glad, that I obtain genuine gladness. This holds for every phenomenon of living, insofar as one is determined in this manner. [Heidegger  , GA18:53-54]