> "It's tough to argue with Heidegger because there's something about his
> philosophy that makes him immune to criticism."
> It's tough. Maybe he's immune to criticism. But he's open to thinking.
> There's a big difference between the two.
Nicely put, but that's the Heideggerian rhetoric I'm talking about.
"Nothing you say can touch me, because I'm thinking. I'm not even
thinking propositionally, so don't even expect me to make any sense." See
what I mean? Even if that's not the Master's stance, you can see how easy
it his for his disciples to slip into it.
As for the big difference between criticism and thinking: well, just
saying it doesn't make it so. How can we know there is a difference if
it is not possible for the issue to be open to discussion and criticism?
Heidegger is great at ferreting out the presuppositions of others, but
he's blind to the logs in his own eye.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> philosophy that makes him immune to criticism."
> It's tough. Maybe he's immune to criticism. But he's open to thinking.
> There's a big difference between the two.
Nicely put, but that's the Heideggerian rhetoric I'm talking about.
"Nothing you say can touch me, because I'm thinking. I'm not even
thinking propositionally, so don't even expect me to make any sense." See
what I mean? Even if that's not the Master's stance, you can see how easy
it his for his disciples to slip into it.
As for the big difference between criticism and thinking: well, just
saying it doesn't make it so. How can we know there is a difference if
it is not possible for the issue to be open to discussion and criticism?
Heidegger is great at ferreting out the presuppositions of others, but
he's blind to the logs in his own eye.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---