Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:58:01 +0200
Subject: Re:   In dubium revocari


Cologne, 02 July 1998

Anthony Crifasi schrieb:
> We are in agreement that this shift occurred. Our point of disagreement, if I 
> understand you correctly, is whether this shift is what made possible the
>  more 
> "particular" arguments (such as the dream argument, Hume's arguments 
> against metaphysical causality, etc.), or whether it was those more
>  particular 
> arguments upon which the shift depended in the first place.
>
> I should point out that I don't think that our dispute here in any way
>  threatens 
> Heidegger's analytic. Whether subject/object metaphysics began with 
> Descartes or with Aristotle, Heidegger's shift to a non-metaphysical "ground" 
> remains what it is - a departure from subject/object metaphysics, and
>  therefore 
> a way out of the transcendental solipsism of Husserl's theory.

Yes, our disagreement seems to revolve around whether the shift is a consequence 
of the arguments explicitly presented, i.e. of what is said in the texts 
(specifically: the dream argument), or whether the shift itself is something 
unsaid in the Aristotelean and Cartesian texts. The latter alternative would be 
the lethic (hidden, en-crypted) dimension of the history of the truth of being 
(alaetheia) to which Aristotle and Descartes only respond without mastering it 
argumentatively.

And so we are left in the _aporia_ once again.

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ 
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---