>Nov. 23 Rita wrote:
>
>"Either way, the death/guilt drive is bothering me here. Does anyone else
>"think there is something fishy here? Why should Being-towards-death and
>anxiety
>"be that by which meaning is disclosed? I find this highly unsatisfying as
>"an account. I much prefer ex-tasis and thauma *and creativity* --
>"present more so in later Heidegger -- as disclosing of Being.
>
>Me too. Why "Death, care, falling, ...structures of Dasein?
>instead of elan, reason, exaltation...? Aren't H's core concepts
>rather idiosyncratic, or arbitrary, and dogmatic?
>
>Seems he projects the biological event, death, onto ontology
>as the Null; as the Scholastics did with generation and life, as
>God. "Nothing" is a concept like "God," perfectly vacuous except
>as indicating the unknowable, ineffable; and since he makes the Nihil the
>matrix
>and repository of Being, it feels like a kind of ironic Thomism.
>feels like he's reworking a Q text (Western onto-theology)
>liberally eliding and transforming, but careful to elucidate his
>notion of the mysterium and kerygma.
there seems to be a very clear "reason" for use of the nothing in "what is
metaphysics". in B&T, the moment of anxiety is the occasion for dasein's
recognition of the ready-to-handedness of things. as the r-t-hness of
things recedes, things offer themselves as possibilities (both as future
things to take up and the roles that taking up such things brings along
with it). the nothing in WIM plays almost the same role as death does in
B&T. it is what things recede into, it is what repells beings that are in
retreat, and it then sets in relief, not possibilities for dasein, but
being as such. nothingness, by serving as a background or context for the
being of things, brings us before (for the first time) being as such.
maybe i havnt answered the question. sorry if i have gone off on an
unrelated topic, but as i understand it, these earlier notions arent so
separated from the later formulations. come to think of it, this post is
probably not pertinent at all.
p.s. hi, im oliver and this is my first in a sting of what will probably be
useless posts.
oliver
ex nihilo omne ens qua ens fit
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>"Either way, the death/guilt drive is bothering me here. Does anyone else
>"think there is something fishy here? Why should Being-towards-death and
>anxiety
>"be that by which meaning is disclosed? I find this highly unsatisfying as
>"an account. I much prefer ex-tasis and thauma *and creativity* --
>"present more so in later Heidegger -- as disclosing of Being.
>
>Me too. Why "Death, care, falling, ...structures of Dasein?
>instead of elan, reason, exaltation...? Aren't H's core concepts
>rather idiosyncratic, or arbitrary, and dogmatic?
>
>Seems he projects the biological event, death, onto ontology
>as the Null; as the Scholastics did with generation and life, as
>God. "Nothing" is a concept like "God," perfectly vacuous except
>as indicating the unknowable, ineffable; and since he makes the Nihil the
>matrix
>and repository of Being, it feels like a kind of ironic Thomism.
>feels like he's reworking a Q text (Western onto-theology)
>liberally eliding and transforming, but careful to elucidate his
>notion of the mysterium and kerygma.
there seems to be a very clear "reason" for use of the nothing in "what is
metaphysics". in B&T, the moment of anxiety is the occasion for dasein's
recognition of the ready-to-handedness of things. as the r-t-hness of
things recedes, things offer themselves as possibilities (both as future
things to take up and the roles that taking up such things brings along
with it). the nothing in WIM plays almost the same role as death does in
B&T. it is what things recede into, it is what repells beings that are in
retreat, and it then sets in relief, not possibilities for dasein, but
being as such. nothingness, by serving as a background or context for the
being of things, brings us before (for the first time) being as such.
maybe i havnt answered the question. sorry if i have gone off on an
unrelated topic, but as i understand it, these earlier notions arent so
separated from the later formulations. come to think of it, this post is
probably not pertinent at all.
p.s. hi, im oliver and this is my first in a sting of what will probably be
useless posts.
oliver
ex nihilo omne ens qua ens fit
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---