rene writes:
> And as to essentialism, it's not my aim to see essences being build-in
in this
> reality. I rather point to possibilities, which, being rooted out
universally,
> get urgent on account of their *absence*. Like when shame, honor and
respect are
> failing. They're nothing existent now, rather superfluous, but entirely
without
> them, the world becomes intolerable.
ok, rene, but no less when perversely ascribed.
Dasein, being possibility itself, is the
> (groundless) ground carrying these possibilities. Not real, but
necessary therefore.
> It would be this necessity, that, incomparably more than 'real things',
concerns us.
> (Dasein the being that cares for its own being)
...wherein resides all hope, yes, ...but obviating darwin, freud, weber, &
co., denying them ontological import, in the name of diss-occluding
possibility is equally errant and willful, no?
so, agreed, there must be a transformation of self; but that don't excuse
one from the rev
>
> So, Jud is right, when he says: Dasein does not exist. He is, though,
not right,
> when he would say: Dasein, as possibility, does not exist. Because then
he would
> deny his own doings, as far as they're not biologically predetermined
(that is:
> by his 'existents'). As long as i still see flexibility in an opponent,
there is
> possibility, perspective, a reason to continue talking. Which in case of
the
> others' was gone entirely, so that they had only one option left, when
forced to
> move: out.
...of course, you're right, here, ...and your judgement sacred (free
country), but the enunciations of power are patent, and power never defers
to truth.
bob
>
> 'but i could be wrong...'
>
> rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> And as to essentialism, it's not my aim to see essences being build-in
in this
> reality. I rather point to possibilities, which, being rooted out
universally,
> get urgent on account of their *absence*. Like when shame, honor and
respect are
> failing. They're nothing existent now, rather superfluous, but entirely
without
> them, the world becomes intolerable.
ok, rene, but no less when perversely ascribed.
Dasein, being possibility itself, is the
> (groundless) ground carrying these possibilities. Not real, but
necessary therefore.
> It would be this necessity, that, incomparably more than 'real things',
concerns us.
> (Dasein the being that cares for its own being)
...wherein resides all hope, yes, ...but obviating darwin, freud, weber, &
co., denying them ontological import, in the name of diss-occluding
possibility is equally errant and willful, no?
so, agreed, there must be a transformation of self; but that don't excuse
one from the rev
>
> So, Jud is right, when he says: Dasein does not exist. He is, though,
not right,
> when he would say: Dasein, as possibility, does not exist. Because then
he would
> deny his own doings, as far as they're not biologically predetermined
(that is:
> by his 'existents'). As long as i still see flexibility in an opponent,
there is
> possibility, perspective, a reason to continue talking. Which in case of
the
> others' was gone entirely, so that they had only one option left, when
forced to
> move: out.
...of course, you're right, here, ...and your judgement sacred (free
country), but the enunciations of power are patent, and power never defers
to truth.
bob
>
> 'but i could be wrong...'
>
> rene
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---