Thanks for the reply Chris (and you also Erik)!
I expected there to be some philosopher in particular that Heidegger
lashing out at here. Guess not - As far as I have read, it looks
like Aristotle, Descartes, and Husserl are the primary bearers
of his wrath.
BTW, I wanted to let you guys know, I've been checking out some
of the other (listserv) philosophy discussions over the past
couple of weeks...and this is definitely the best one I've come
across. Most of the others are either way off the topic, or dominated
by idiots (or both). But you all have for the most part been very
insightful, without being too dry and dull!
Thanks for your help - I'm looking forward to future discussions!
Erika Hall
On Fri 20, Sep 20 1996, Christopher Rickey wrote:
> One must attend to the inverted commas which indicate that
> Heidegger is using someone else's words. He is referring to
> neo-Kantian philosophy (which school escapes me at the moment).
> The point he wishes to make is that things appear in the world
> as meaningful and "valuable" as they appear; contrary to what
> neo-kantians thought, the value is not "invested" by the will
> after the bare empirical appearance of a thing.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Erika wrote:
>
> > _Being_and_Time_, Division I, Chapter 3, Section 14 (p91 of
> > Macquarrie & Robinson Translation [H.63]})
> > "Thus, to give a phenomenological description of the 'world'
> > will mean to exhibit the Being of those entities which are
> > present-at-hand within the world, and to fix it in concepts
> > which are categorical. Now the entities within the world
> > are Things -- Things of Nature, and Things 'invested with
> > value' ["wertbehaftete" Dinge].
> >
> > Where does this "value" idea come from?...To whom is he
> > referring? - I mean what theory/what philosopher?...I know the
> > "Nature" reference comes from Aristotle, but value I cannot
> > figure. Just off the top of my head, I think of Marx...Any
> > Ideas?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I expected there to be some philosopher in particular that Heidegger
lashing out at here. Guess not - As far as I have read, it looks
like Aristotle, Descartes, and Husserl are the primary bearers
of his wrath.
BTW, I wanted to let you guys know, I've been checking out some
of the other (listserv) philosophy discussions over the past
couple of weeks...and this is definitely the best one I've come
across. Most of the others are either way off the topic, or dominated
by idiots (or both). But you all have for the most part been very
insightful, without being too dry and dull!
Thanks for your help - I'm looking forward to future discussions!
Erika Hall
On Fri 20, Sep 20 1996, Christopher Rickey wrote:
> One must attend to the inverted commas which indicate that
> Heidegger is using someone else's words. He is referring to
> neo-Kantian philosophy (which school escapes me at the moment).
> The point he wishes to make is that things appear in the world
> as meaningful and "valuable" as they appear; contrary to what
> neo-kantians thought, the value is not "invested" by the will
> after the bare empirical appearance of a thing.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Erika wrote:
>
> > _Being_and_Time_, Division I, Chapter 3, Section 14 (p91 of
> > Macquarrie & Robinson Translation [H.63]})
> > "Thus, to give a phenomenological description of the 'world'
> > will mean to exhibit the Being of those entities which are
> > present-at-hand within the world, and to fix it in concepts
> > which are categorical. Now the entities within the world
> > are Things -- Things of Nature, and Things 'invested with
> > value' ["wertbehaftete" Dinge].
> >
> > Where does this "value" idea come from?...To whom is he
> > referring? - I mean what theory/what philosopher?...I know the
> > "Nature" reference comes from Aristotle, but value I cannot
> > figure. Just off the top of my head, I think of Marx...Any
> > Ideas?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---