Jason B Collier wrote:
>I am struggling with H's notion of
>thing and trying to re-think it. However, I don't think I am doing that
>well. it would appear that the character of things as, relative or
>autonomous woud be the difference between the difference between thing
>and phenomena. Let me ask a question though, are concerned only with
>things we have visiual, tactil, olfactory contact with, or would this
>cover planets (other than ours), and countries we have never been to, or
>seen pictures of?
I grew up when the dark side of the Moon was truly dark. Does that mean that
because it could not be seen, that it didn't exist? Or that it only came to
exist once it was seen? Perhaps Bishop Berkeley would say so. My only
proviso is that something be potentially actualizable in some form or
fashion sometime. I have no problem with unknown bodies, but entirely
unknowable ones I think are another matter. That is why I think that the
absolute whole of anything would be its sum potential across all moments,
but would never be fully actualized in any one moment. Wholes, even of the
most mundane of things, would be unknowable. We could infer them, _that_
they are, if you will, but not exactly "what" they are.
Steve
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>I am struggling with H's notion of
>thing and trying to re-think it. However, I don't think I am doing that
>well. it would appear that the character of things as, relative or
>autonomous woud be the difference between the difference between thing
>and phenomena. Let me ask a question though, are concerned only with
>things we have visiual, tactil, olfactory contact with, or would this
>cover planets (other than ours), and countries we have never been to, or
>seen pictures of?
I grew up when the dark side of the Moon was truly dark. Does that mean that
because it could not be seen, that it didn't exist? Or that it only came to
exist once it was seen? Perhaps Bishop Berkeley would say so. My only
proviso is that something be potentially actualizable in some form or
fashion sometime. I have no problem with unknown bodies, but entirely
unknowable ones I think are another matter. That is why I think that the
absolute whole of anything would be its sum potential across all moments,
but would never be fully actualized in any one moment. Wholes, even of the
most mundane of things, would be unknowable. We could infer them, _that_
they are, if you will, but not exactly "what" they are.
Steve
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---