Comical Quips from Germany's Onto-Nerd.
(From the Jud Evans Bumper Fun Book of Heideggian Howlers.)
Germany's shallow-thinking onto-nerd Heidegger constantly rabbits on about
*the questioning of Being.* He was seemingly oblivious of the fact that as for
him *Being* is *uncovered* by the procedures of his own comprehension of the
being that is Heidegger, and of the beings that are not Heidegger, he is not
interrogating *Being* at all, but rather querying the processes and
conclusions of his own understanding, which is discovered by understanding the very
comprehension he is uncomprehendingly questioning.
As Heidegger believed that the *I* in a sense closest to *me* does not mean
that *I* comprehends *it,* he obviously believed that there were two
Heideggerian homunculi inside his nodal noddle battling it out for the position of
*top-gun perceptionist.* Isn't it time some charitable person took him gently
by the elbow and quietly informed him that *I* and *me* are merely subjective
and objective grammatical terms - *me* being the objective form of "I" and
"I" being a pronoun which refers to the speaker or writer as the subject? Now,
if Heidegger admits that his internal perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME* doesn't
comprehend perceptionist Mark 1 - *I,* and perceptionist Mark 1 - *I* doesn't
comprehend perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME,* how can either of them be expected to
uncover the *Being* of another being, if they cannot even understand their
own *Being?* As Heidegger takes great pains to show, our self-understanding is
not usually at all authentic. If our self-understanding of the self is not
authentic, then how can our understanding of *Being* be authentic - for it is
by the instrument of our inauthentic self-understanding-self that an
inauthentic understanding of the *Being* of beings takes place, and a *fictitious* or
*inauthentic* *Being* is uncovered?
Regards,
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 ---
(From the Jud Evans Bumper Fun Book of Heideggian Howlers.)
Germany's shallow-thinking onto-nerd Heidegger constantly rabbits on about
*the questioning of Being.* He was seemingly oblivious of the fact that as for
him *Being* is *uncovered* by the procedures of his own comprehension of the
being that is Heidegger, and of the beings that are not Heidegger, he is not
interrogating *Being* at all, but rather querying the processes and
conclusions of his own understanding, which is discovered by understanding the very
comprehension he is uncomprehendingly questioning.
As Heidegger believed that the *I* in a sense closest to *me* does not mean
that *I* comprehends *it,* he obviously believed that there were two
Heideggerian homunculi inside his nodal noddle battling it out for the position of
*top-gun perceptionist.* Isn't it time some charitable person took him gently
by the elbow and quietly informed him that *I* and *me* are merely subjective
and objective grammatical terms - *me* being the objective form of "I" and
"I" being a pronoun which refers to the speaker or writer as the subject? Now,
if Heidegger admits that his internal perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME* doesn't
comprehend perceptionist Mark 1 - *I,* and perceptionist Mark 1 - *I* doesn't
comprehend perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME,* how can either of them be expected to
uncover the *Being* of another being, if they cannot even understand their
own *Being?* As Heidegger takes great pains to show, our self-understanding is
not usually at all authentic. If our self-understanding of the self is not
authentic, then how can our understanding of *Being* be authentic - for it is
by the instrument of our inauthentic self-understanding-self that an
inauthentic understanding of the *Being* of beings takes place, and a *fictitious* or
*inauthentic* *Being* is uncovered?
Regards,
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 ---