Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:03:57 EST
Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one



In a message dated 3/15/03 4:09:39 PM, riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au writes:

>In this section Heidegger makes 3 points as to why the 
>question of being hasn't been asked seriously in previous philosophical
>
>traditions in that it's generally been glossed over as a 'universal', 
>'indefinable' and 'self-evident' concept.
>
>'Thisness' or 'this-here-now' and other derivatives are bandied about 
>as a gloss for 'being', or more properly for Dasein (one's own 
>being-here/there), it's not a technical term of Heidegger's. Hegel's 
>version which Heidegger quotes is the 'indefinable immediate' 
>(unbestimmte Unmittelbare) which really says nothing much at all.

'Thisness' portrayed in 'time' which itself is portrayed associated with 
'being' appears to be at least a deconstruction of hegel, who perhaps wrapped 
time in being, and heidegger may be suggesting that being is wrapped in time, 
or they are wrapped up together.  I mean that throughout time (history) 
'thisness' changes.  The present 'thisness' will be a different 'thisness' 
tomorrow, including numbers, theories (eg, democracy), what it means to be 
human, cups, shoehorns, and so on.

Looking back at the questions posed here from this side of Foucault, one 
already glimmers the influence of heidegger on Foucault's thinking associated 
with his terms 'archaeology' and 'genealogy'. -- hen


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