File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 474


Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:40:50 EST
Subject: Re: Being and Time-section 2



--part1_1cc.61dfc3b.2bb6ee52_boundary

In a message dated 28/03/2003 18:24:52 GMT Standard Time, 
riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au writes:


> Subj:Being and Time-section 2
> Date:28/03/2003 18:24:52 GMT Standard Time
> From:    riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au (Malcolm Riddoch)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> This is the necessity of Destruktion, or critical dismantling (Abbau, 
> or 'deconstruction'), but it's also our starting place cos we all more 
> or less understand without even thinking about it what it means to say 
> something or other 'is' something... yes?
> 


Jud:
No. It is  the basic and fundamental misunderstanding of "is" [the BE-word in 
its many conjugational guises] that  subverts the whole of Heideggerianism
and renders all that is extrapolated from this elementary misconstrual 
totally vacuous. Heidegger's disarray can be found in his inability to 
understand the role of the IS-word in that it only ever applies to the 
existential modality of entities, and NEVER corresponds to the meaning of  
simple presence rather than non-presence, in the sense of: "Little blue men 
exist on Mars." If we say: "There are little blue men on Mars" we are using "
there" as a pronoun, and the meaning of the sentence is one describing the 
existential modality of the little blue men as one of being on Mars. It does 
not address the simple "existence" of the little blue men per se.   He 
persists in positing a spurious "ontological difference" where none exists. 
Hence the requirement of the Daseinic device which acts as a cloak. Once 
somebody accepts the neologistic language of Heideggerianism, they are often 
> trammels which lead 
> inexorably to the utter confusion we witness in the ontic versus 
> ontological discussions now taking place on this list. 
> 
Cheers,

Jud.

<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A> 
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>

--part1_1cc.61dfc3b.2bb6ee52_boundary

HTML VERSION:

In a message dated 28/03/2003 18:24:52 GMT Standard Time, riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au writes:


Subj:Being and Time-section 2
Date:28/03/2003 18:24:52 GMT Standard Time
From:    riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au (Malcolm Riddoch)
Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu



This is the necessity of Destruktion, or critical dismantling (Abbau,
or 'deconstruction'), but it's also our starting place cos we all more
or less understand without even thinking about it what it means to say
something or other 'is' something... yes?



Jud:
No. It is  the basic and fundamental misunderstanding of "is" [the BE-word in its many conjugational guises] that  subverts the whole of Heideggerianism
and renders all that is extrapolated from this elementary misconstrual totally vacuous. Heidegger's disarray can be found in his inability to understand the role of the IS-word in that it only ever applies to the existential modality of entities, and NEVER corresponds to the meaning of  simple=20presence rather than non-presence, in the sense of: "Little blue men exist on Mars." If we say: "There are little blue men on Mars" we are using "there" as a pronoun, and the meaning of the sentence is one describing the existential modality of the little blue men as one of being on Mars. It does not address the simple "existence" of the little blue=20men per se.   He persists in positing a spurious "ontological difference" where none exists. Hence the requirement of the Daseinic device which acts as a cloak. Once somebody accepts the neologistic language of=20Heideggerianism, they are often inextricably lost and become enchained by its semantic
trammels which lead=20inexorably to the utter confusion we witness in the ontic versus ontological discussions now taking place on this list.

Cheers,

Jud.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com
--part1_1cc.61dfc3b.2bb6ee52_boundary-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005