Jud:
What you say is true Jan. But the average person would ask WHY did he change
his tune? Was it a sudden revelation that he had to change tack from the
hysterical garbage of the thirties and replace it with a softer version more
likely to engage the sensibiliies of the Christian west>
A cynical carreer move rather than a genuine philosophical turn? Stuart
BTW totally and uncharacteristically [he is usually pretty sharp]
underestimates the significance of the of the 1944 [ammended] intro to
*What is Metaphysics,* which was in a sense a flip-flop in the character of
a new form of introduction to certain earlier work he had originally written
on the subject before the U-turn had seen the light of day. The amended
introduction constitutes a virtually completely different ontology or
philosophy
to the one which preceded it.
Rene:
He explained it all, for who has ears. And he hid for who only have claws.
Since 1934 he had to be careful, even more after 1945. And still...
I see you start talking like the hyena's: "a different ontology" and the like
is just cra., sorry: academy (akadummy).
Jud:
I thought you referred to Heidegger as a fox? Now he is a hyna again -
perhaps he was a Romanian Shape-changer who spoke good German?
I thought Arendt called him *an old ram* - not *an old fox* anyway?
Jokes are OK as interludes - as little exercises for the rictus muscles -
but why don't you address the question properly now we've had our little laugh?
Again the question: *How could ANYONE be so stupid as to come up with an
ontology like MARK 1?
What did he have to be *careful* about after 1934 in relation to his
two-version ontology of *Being* 01 and 02?
Spare a thought for all the billions of objects in the universe, biting
their nails in their Platonic wonderland wondering whether they exist or not -
waiting for some silly old fart in Freiburg to make his mind up - playing with
an ontological version of *She loves you...she loves you not... she loves
you...she loves you not...*
More specifically, [in the high hopes of a specific answer [rather than the
mixture of amusing ad hominised waffle]
what did he have to fear concerning the ontological opposites of ONTOLOGY
MARK 1 and ONTOLOGY MARK 2?
Ontology (MARK 1) Beings featured as a NON-REQUIREMENT of *Being*
Ontology (MARK 2) *Being* featured as ALWAYS being accompanied by beings.
If *Being* is supposed to be *that which reveals itself in the process of
perceiving beings* [the process of *Object Givenness*] - how can there be
*Being* if there are no beings to perceive or be perceived? I am sure the
delicate flower of a list-Guru could aswer this one, but he has apparently
retired to an ant-hill to consider their ways and be wise.
Jud:
(earlier]
ONTOLOGY (A) *Being* might well be WITHOUT entities. Now in this version,
*Being,* which he offers as being the *existence* of an entiy/entities can
be a
part of reality [or be a *metaphor* for the *being* of an entity in the wise
words of List-Guru Michael Pennamacoor] or even if we accept the more obtuse
*fall-back* position of *Being* as *object givenness* how in the name of
God-Almighty could *Being* be without entities if *Being* was a constituent
corollary of the *object givenness* or be the *Being* of beings. If *Being*
is
the *Being* of beings, then a half-pissed Malay seaman in a Kuala Lumpan
drinking den could tell you that *Being* couldn't be, or even not be *Being*
in
circumstances where there were no beings to be the *being* of.
Rene:
When he first writes, that there is Being without beings, what he means
is: there is Being (Beyng), that is: not the metaphysical Being of beings,
and in THAT sense 'without' beings.
Jud:
Please don't evade the question. Again.
*If *Being* is supposed to be that which reveals itself in the process of
perceiving beings [the process of *Object Givenness* - how can there be
*Being* if there are no beings to perceive or be perceived?*
Are you suggesting that there are TWO KINDS of *Being*
(A) The sort of *Being* for which the presence of beings is unnessessary for
its *uncovering?*
(B) The sort of *Being* for which the presence of beings is nessessary for
its *uncovering?*
Detailed answer with evidence please.
Rene:
But of course and lastly, as he corrected, there is never being without
beings.
Jud:
Rather *a throw-away* line isn't it Rene?
Here it is again...
* But of course and lastly, as he corrected, there is never being without
beings..*
My God! It completely transform his whole ontology! From a non-facilitating
and *independent* *Being* that can be spoken of WITHOUT the necessity of
beings, [in the manner of a *God* which could presumably be present BEFORE he
created the world and its beings} - to a *Being* which is TOTALLY DEPENDENT upon
beings in order to *disclose* itself or anything else? He certainly took
*Being* Mark 1 down an ontological peg or two didn't he!
Come on Rene - time to sort yourself out! The *8th and 14th letter's* out of
the way now - I'm homing-in on his so-called *philosophy.* now.
That's what you've ALWAYS been urging me to do [access his *language* and
try and get inside his weasel brain.
And up to now it's a leaking bucket with so many ontological holes, if you
hung it on a hook it would make a good shower.
If Heidegger agrees with Husserl that the *Being* of all entities lies in
the sense we gain of them in our understanding, then that means that an
erroneous understanding of what he takes for a *fig tree* by *say* a short-sighted
old age pensioner renders it inexistent, if what is thought to be a fig-tree
is actually a new type of artificial Christmas tree manufactured from
plastic. Or are you saying that the *Being* of the plastic Christmas tree is
magically transfigured into the *Being* of a fig tree through the medium of the
misunderstanding of the mistaken old man? Or does this only happen if your
name happens to be Harry Potter?
Rene:
There's another clue, when he writes elsewhere that in the Gegnet, the hiding
sphere that is first to be found and experienced, things don't stand
(like in sub-sistere) but lie (like in keisthai, hypokeimenon).
Jud:
Pop-up-and-down like hypokeimenon you mean don't you? Reminds me of dear
old Anthony's pop-up-and-down-mountains and your very ownmost
pop-up-and-down-pepperpot - lighthouse Rene. Experience of the environment isn't spherical -
it's THE WORLD which is spherical, for it exists in a spherical form - but
a realisation of its sphericality comes at quite an advanced stage in a
child's development - for whom initially the earth is a place of flat and curved
surfaces
Anyway, what connection has this got to do with the ontological conflict
between
*Being* (Mark 1) which doesn't need beings,
and
*Being* (Mark 2) which does?
In *Being* Mark 1 there are no entities and no Gegnet, no *hiding spheres* -
and there never can be - for beings can only be uncovered by the daseinic
process of uncovering via *Object Givenness* - and as there are no objects, and
hence no *object giveness* and no *Dasein*.
In *Being* mark 2 - the Gegnet, the hiding sphere that is first to be found
and experienced - the human baby's first experience is the mother's teat or
the wandering finger that finds its way to his/her mouth.
What nonsense is this? Philosophy for grown men or children's fairy stories?
Rene:
Either the island is BeSTANDstueck of the tourist industry, like the woods
in the wood industry, or it lies protracted in the sea. There's no real
and objective island behind these.
Jud:
An island is a land mass (smaller than a continent) that is surrounded by
water - I live on one so I should know.
We get lots of tourists here but the island is still an island whilst they
are here and after they are gone.
You don't believe the *objective island of Britain exists - try walking back
home across the channel and see how far you get.
Rene:
Jud represents the since Kant ridiculous
position of the Ding an sich. He hasn't any idea of Kant, but calls
Heidegger,
who lived among as many Kantians as Jews, childish. But listen, here he goes
again:
Jud:
I ONLY believe that *Ding an sich* [entity] exist - for me *phenomena* are
best left to those pimply-faced ones who loll about in amusement arcades and
dotty German transcendentalists who have faith that states or processes can
be known through the senses, rather than by reasoning that it is the
entities that can be sensed, and not their apparent buzzings and bleeps [which are
simply the different ways that material entities exist].
Jud: [earlier]
Of course the silly old buffer even lacked the nous to think that through
properly, to spot that Ein Kosmos ohne irgendwelche Gegenstände oder Wesen
[A cosmos without any objects or nature] would preclude the *entity* Dasein
too.
Rene:
well old bugger, he thought of that too. Dasein is, though, not merely an
entity.
Look at the word, linguist: Da - SEIN. Sein (to be) is a verb, and denotes a
condition, an action/passion. Not a thing no, why are you refuting yourself?
Jud:
I have mentioned the word *Dasein* and its meaning more time on this list
during the years I've been on it that you have had hot dinners.
I know quite well what *Dasin* means and if humanity and all other beings
where missing from Heidegger's Mark 1 ontology there would be no *being there*
of humanity either? You just don't concentrate like you used to do - old age
creeping up? ;-)
Jud [previously]
So even if *Being* by some mad metaphysical twist of reality WAS still
able to kick-around without being the *Being* of anything - it couldn't do
its
job of *uncovering* anything for (1) there would be nothing to be
*uncovered*
and (2) there would be nothing to *uncover* it to.
Rene:
Right. Watch it Jud, you're now talking like a Heideggerean. Thanks, I
cannot
achieve more
Jud:
I knew if I left off the *8th and 14th letter* word and utilise or mimicked
the language of Heidegger I'd have you tied up in knots.
I'm rather enjoying this existentialist ventriloquist act - soon the words
will be rolling off my tongue like any other Heidyite bullshitter - WHAT FUN!
I expect the usual burst of ad hom soon - but I have my pickel-stauber hat
on and I well entrenched in my scraped-out DA.
My anti-Heideggerian geiger-counter always detects the movement of slowly
turning cogs when my criticisms become impossible to fend off and explain. ;-)
Better get that Kant out Rene again and have another read? ;-)
Regards,
Groet from my ownmost, uttermost, Englishmost ownness of my darling little
Northern DA by the Irish sea.
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---