Subject: Re: WtP and justice
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:31:35 -0800




>This kind of statement really
>has nothing to do with any of Heidegger's writings are
>thoughts.

JAnthony,

Um, have you even read Being and Time, especially the part
where he
explicitly states that fundamental ontology is ethics
neutral in the sense
that it provides the groundwork for any possible ethics? I
will get the
citation for you when I get home in a few days if you like.

John here:

You were the one that brought ethics into the discussion.
Don't you remember placating us all about the morally just
war in Iraq?

But did you take the time to do your research about WHO
originally supplied chemical weapons and other weapons of
mass destruction to Iraq beginning in 1983?

No of course you did not. U do not know who supplied the
weapons. It was the US in its' support of the war against
Iran. Do you not watch the news. DID you know that the US
supplied all the chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the
1980's?

No of course you did not know. That is why you have this
tremendous ethical posture of superiority. Did you not know
that Ronald Reagan worked with Donald Rumsfeld to ensure
that the world did not learn about this 'accomplishment'?

No of course you did not know. The CBC is this very night
exposing all the declassified information.

Did you know the power of deception which is working inside
of the US currently? U act as if you are some puritan and
without stain of murder and destruction. But it is your tax
money which funded all the chemical weapons, sold to Saddam,
and others which caused all the innocent people to die. You
and your foul government are guilty of deep sins.

And you take your enormity to our list. Shameful practice.
Saddam is not the only actor to use chemical weapons, but
the US. The US supplied ALL the chemicals to Saddam.

Just check out the documents at the George Washington
University Archives.

You are incredibly naive and totally fooled by US corporate
news services.

The US is the only 'stupid power' left in the world....

chao

john foster

>The real difference though is in what is cared
>for - the self or the self of others? A lack of care  thus
>would be a lack of care for the self, or another, but the
>care (as active concern - Heidegger) is still operative.

And you accuse me of saying things that has nothing to do
with any of
Heidegger's writings and thoughts? Care is involved in EVERY
encounter with
ALL beings, not just ourselves and Others. When I am
hammering, care
pervades my very dealing with equipment. Your notion of care
above is
blatantly limited, and is very reflective of the
misinterpretation of
Heidegger by most Deep Ecologists.

>"There is no ontical structure which is 'un-caring' (even
>plunder must be a kind of care)." [A. Crifasi]
>
>This kind of 'nihilistic' statement does not really state
>anything. Since the quality of care and plunder are
>'equivalent terms' - but in essence are different. If they
>are the same, then why are their 2 terms for different
>qualities?

Because there are 2 meanings of care: the ontic kind, which
CAN be opposed
to plundering (i.e., in common usage, a plunderer is an
uncaring person);
and the ontological kind, which is the condition for the
very possibility of
any being-in-the-world whatsoever (both plundering and
non-plundering),
because it is simply dealing, and any possible
being-in-the-world is a
dealing. You are confusing one meaning with the other, as do
almost ALL Deep
Ecologists.

>"There is no ontical encounter with beings which is not
>already being-alongside." [A. Crifasi]
>
>This statement presupposes that there are specific
'ontical'
>encounters with beings. I think what this means is referred
>to in Being and Time wherein a discussion of 'world' and
>'environment' is presented. "Being-in" as in 'being in the
>world' involves being present alongside or beside someother
>entities. There cannot be a simple environment or world
>where there only 2 entities side by side.

Again, you have a limited understanding of what this means.
Heidegger
contrasts being-alongside with being-inside, as in being
inside a container
(the universe), which is the traditional metaphysical view
of how we are in
the world. The latter view gave way to idealism and
subjectivism, all the
way up to Husserl, who denied that the transcendental ego is
AT FIRST
apodictically certain that it is in a real world at all. So
in contrast to
this, Heidegger says that we are ALREADY in the world from
the start, even
before Dasein is objectified and split as subject from
object, leading to
the denial of the object. So before we are in a position to
deny the
existence of beings, we are already alongside beings. That
is what Heidegger
means, not merely that there must be more than 2 entities.
It is not a
limitation to 2 entities that he is worried about, but
rather the limitation
to ONE entity (i.e., ourselves) at the start, which is what
Husserl did.

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 ---