Re: Ah Well

To Colin Clayton; I do not claim to "be" anybody. I simply
make comments now again in response to posts. This is ostensibly
the point of the thing... The rather universally negative tone
of replies to my posts doesn't disturb me because all this
is vaporous stuff, of no consequence, aetherial murmurings.

But I read what people write. When what is written strikes me
as thoughtful and or insightful, I say so. When not, I say so.
In our male dominated society I am approrpiating a shooting from
the hip style not allowed women. Thus good old Michael Harrawood,
who seems none to fond of the ladies in the first place, prefaced
one of his earlier nasty cracks of the "how dare she variety"
with a term of endearment usually reserved for friends, into
which category he and I assuredly do not fall, if I can judge
>from the tenor of his spleen.

In general, I have always found it to be a better course to begin
by seeking to understand what could count as 'good' reasons why
Heidegger settled on the instances he *did* choose as disclosive
than to propose, as has been done more than once before on this list
by the by, say, love (and Tom, if you are watching, all references
to your name were fortuitous. I've nothing against you or your
name, I liked some of the directions you seem to be moving in, just
thought you could find much more inspiration in other fields
than Heidegger's own) or "making Mommy proud" (credit: T. Blancato).

But this is just my idea of rigor. It is, more than manifestly,
a minority viewpoint. And, Dr. Clayton, since you mention books
you've published on Heidegger, be aware that as yet I've done no
such thing. I am a Nietzsche scholar, and I daresay even British
libraries carry my book. Be my guest: look it up.

I'll do the same, but your post hardly encourages me.

See how mutual all this is?? Gives a new meaning to Heraclitus.

Dr. B.E. Babich


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Folow-ups
  • Re: Ah Well
    • From: Tom Blancato
  • Partial thread listing: