Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:09:18 +0100


okay, but can you define 'ontic'?  Is this a neologism, of Heidegger's
making, derived from ontology?  Or a separate word?  I'll try an online
dictionary too.
I think it is best to avoid fruitless dualisms.  They infest our manner of
thinking, especially where politics is concerned.  Because the insistence on
dichotomy is also the insistence on simplicity.  That simplicity can be
communicated to a mass who must OBEY or be
ignored/discarded/refused/isolated.  Life is not black and white but shades
of grey, propaganda is black and white - monsters and Gods, demons and
angels, baby eating demi-goblins attacking kultur, invading weak,
defenceless she-countries full of innocent victims.  If they aren't innocent
it is necessary to invent that innocence, if they don't exist at all, they
can be created, when we kill the enemies innocent they are 'collateral
damage'.  Countries that our side attacks are depicted as in need of
'humanitarian intervention', demagogues bypassing aid to their cronies and
creatures.  Rogue states have dictators when they are enemies, when they are
our friends they have a 'special relationship' and are led by 'strong men'.
(and so on...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one


> Paul Murphy wrote:
>
> >I thought that if he was rejecting the Enlightenment, that he would have
to
> >insist on something else, that which the Enlightenment is not, if one
> >believes in dualities - logic/irrational, monarchy/democracy,
order/chaos,
> >aristocracy/equality.  I think sometimes that there can be a little
chaos,
> >a
> >little order, and much that is inbetween.  So, Heidegger is critiquing
the
> >Enlightenment.  What is the starting point of this critique?
>
> Paul is asking exactly the right questions here. It is precisely the lack
of
> asking Paul's question here that leads so many people to misinterpret
> Heidegger in two extreme ways: (1) either they say that there is no sense
AT
> ALL in which Heideggerian phenomenology "disagrees with" or "critiques"
any
> particular view, because it is meant to provide the ground for any "view"
> whatsoever, or (2) they go to the other extreme and misidentify
Heideggerian
> phenomenology with some particular ontic "side," and then try to use it to
> justify some particular ontic side over another. Paul's question forces us
> to distinguish the precise sense in which these two are right, and the
sense
> in which they are wrong.
>
> Heidegger obviously criticizes some things. First and foremost, he
> criticizes the identification of Being with beings. Secondly (jumping
ahead
> a bit), he criticizes the interpretation of Dasein as primarily an
essence,
> instead of existence. Thirdly, he criticizes the interpretation of
> being-in-the-world as primarily being-inside. Fourthly, he criticizes the
> interpretation of being-with-others as posterior to the self or the "I". I
> could go on, but you get the point. So Heidegger is indeed criticizing the
> Enlightenment insofar as they identified Being with beings, or interpreted
> Dasein primarily as some essence, or being-in-the-world as primarily
> being-inside, or being-with-others as posterior to the "I," etc. To say
that
> Heidegger does not "critique" is simply ridiculous on its face. I have
been
> in so many Heidegger classes in which the professor immediately squashes
any
> decent class discussion by declaring that Heidegger is not operating in
such
> polemic modes. This is the number one reason that 99% of beginning
students
> come out not knowing what the hell Heidegger is trying to say.
>
> BUT, Heidegger does not then simply offer another ontic alternative.
> Instead, he offers an analytic which provides the ground of any possible
> ontic side whatsoever. What he rules out is not any particular ontic side,
> but the conflation of any such ontic side with the ontological ground. For
> example, Heideggerian phenomenology does not rule out ontic
interpretations
> of Dasein as a soul, or matter, or an ego, etc. What it rules out is the
> interpretation of Dasein as FIRST AND FOREMOST (i.e., ontologically) a
soul,
> or matter, or an ego, etc. For Heidegger, Dasein's "essence" is existence,
> not any particular existent or essence.
>
> So yes Heidegger critiques or disagrees with the Enlightenment, but this
> does not reduce his phenomenology to an ontic side opposed to the
> Enlightenment side, because what he critiques are not ontic
interpretations
> of Dasein, but the interpretations of Dasein FIRST AND FORMOST as ontic.
The
> same goes for their interpretations of Being, being-in-the-world,
> being-with, etc.
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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