To Tomm Blancato
It should not be lost on you, even after your overlong and stunningly
limited post, that by titling your comment "Look" you very nicely
betrayed the true source of your reading/comprehension of Heidegger
in none other than Jean-Paul Sartre. You can find the kind of authenticity
in love in Sartre, only it remains a sight truer to the comlexities
of lived authenticity as, in Sartre and in de Beauvoir's reading and to
use her terminology, it is shot through with ambiguity, all the way
down and the choice one that must be made with every moment.
Yet making this comment as I am now doing is an exercise in futility.
You read Heidegger.
You cam up with the tommy-twaddle you posted.
Understanding nuanced or complicated thoughts (or in this case
suggestions) is not, evidently enough, your strong suit.
And I am about to be zapped by the equal-opportunity-to-misconstrue-
stuff-and-then-complain-about-incoherence contingent.
Banality rules.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
It should not be lost on you, even after your overlong and stunningly
limited post, that by titling your comment "Look" you very nicely
betrayed the true source of your reading/comprehension of Heidegger
in none other than Jean-Paul Sartre. You can find the kind of authenticity
in love in Sartre, only it remains a sight truer to the comlexities
of lived authenticity as, in Sartre and in de Beauvoir's reading and to
use her terminology, it is shot through with ambiguity, all the way
down and the choice one that must be made with every moment.
Yet making this comment as I am now doing is an exercise in futility.
You read Heidegger.
You cam up with the tommy-twaddle you posted.
Understanding nuanced or complicated thoughts (or in this case
suggestions) is not, evidently enough, your strong suit.
And I am about to be zapped by the equal-opportunity-to-misconstrue-
stuff-and-then-complain-about-incoherence contingent.
Banality rules.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---