Subject: Re: the o/o gulf
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:44:46 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

> >Rene de Bakker wrote:
> >
> >>The startling similarities between your political/ontical and your
> >>philosophical/ontological interpretations make me pose this question:
> >>
> >>Are authenticity and non-authenticity in your view not ontological
> >>ways of being-in-the-world, because 'BOTH' are ways of
> >>being-in-the-world?
> >
> >Yes both are ways of being-in-the-world. Is your point that this shows an
> >ontological "preference" for one way over the other, even though both are
> >ways of being-in-the-world?
>
>No that is not my point. You left out the beginning of my post::

Did I? I don't remember there being anything else in your reply besides what 
I copied above. If there was something else, I apologize.

> >The ontic can provide a "direction" to the ontological,
> >but the ontological can be neither peaceful and non-conflictual, nor
> >warlike, precisely because BOTH of these are ways of being-in-the-world.
>
>One just cannot speak of 'the ontological' this way, without getting into
>contradictions. And falling prey to Jud's razor blade: it does not exist.

Well ontically, it doesn't exist. Just as Heidegger says that ontically, 
Dasein's essence is no-thing, which is why Heidegger's ontology leaves 
scientists and analytical philosophers pulling their hair out - they can't 
get beyond the ontic. But Heidegger gets beyond this problem by insisting 
from the start that the scientific mode is not how beings are primarily 
discovered in the first place.

>That also means: it cannot be used as grammatical subject. at least not
>without prohibitions made.
>Formally taken, you talk of it the way Duns Scotus spoke of 'ens': either
>something is finite, or infinite; either caused, or uncaused (but of itself
>none of both) Together such oppositions comprise the whole range of 'ens',
>and therefore belong, besides unum verum and bonum, to the so-called
>transcendentalia. It's a problematic that goes back to Aristotle.
>
>Heidegger treats them in that very early Habilitationsschrift on 
>ps.-Scotus,
>so that, when he started a completely other problematic in BT, he knew he
>had to find other ways of speaking than Scotus' or Kant's, although he
>did not succeed completely. I have an article by Coriando on formal 
>indication
>and language from BT to GA65, that I think would be very clarifying. She 
>for
>instance compares a Heidegger and a Kant sentence, as to their grammar.

I don't think that you have to go that far to escape the problems to which 
you are referring. Even in translation, Heidegger clearly begins by 
questioning the priority of the scientific mode in the first place when it 
comes to the discovering of beings. So given that philosophical distinctions 
in the past have been conditioned by ontic meanings of being, it is not hard 
to see how traditional oppositions and contradictions are transcended by 
Heidegger, despite grammatical issues.

Anthony Crifasi

>But it's in German, and I cannot translate everything. I had thought of a
>particular Michael, but he sank too deep in the anti-mud?
>
>'Geschichte', still something else than history, seems to be something
>completely missing, in everyone, not only in you. All I can do is showing
>the consequences of it. Therefore Destruktion is so essential. All that is
>not destructed, remains, without anyone knowing. The rational animal
>has no control over it, however broad he makes himself.


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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