Dasein and the Gerundialisation of Philosophy. 03
Heidegger’s obsessional project of destroying the History of Ontology [B and
T 36-49]
Is nonsense in three senses.
(a) One cannot destroy the history of anything, one can only replace it with
another guesswork version that may or may not be a more acceptable version
of diachronic approximation.
(b) (Ontology doesn’t exist – only ontologisers exist.
(c) Heidegger’s attempts to unravel the history of ontology is nothing more
than his attempt to replace one form of metaphysics with another
He complains that the notion of Being has been forgotten, seemingly
forgetting that biblical mentions of it were constantly read out in churches for
about two thousands years before he was born to the present day. [Ac 17:28 *For
in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own
poets have said, For we are also his offspring.*]
He mustn’t have been the diligent bible-student he was cracked up to be –
no wonder he was unceremoniously kicked out of college. Later he was refused
the plum post in religious studies, and no wonder he bore an ongoing grudge
against the Catholic church from that day forth, and attempted to replace the
man in white whiskers with a secularised version of: *The Almighty Being. *
He condemns the ontologists who preceded him. He makes them responsible for
the forgetfulness of *Being* and the negligent replacement of it with the
notion of vorhandenheit. He criticises the common-sense of the philosophical
tradition in recognising that *Being* has no concrete meaning and viewing it
as: *the most general of generalities* [B and T 29.] Then what does he
immediately seek to do? He plagiarises *Dasein* from another thinker and generalises
and compacts the he or she who tries to understand beings into the
generalisation of a vulgarised Daseinic embodiment of humanity, universalised into the
mother of all universalisations – that of the actual and barefaced
generalisation of the whole of the human race.
His was a pathetic attempt to reverse Aristotle’s insight that the notion of
*Being* transcends the various categories into which we human instantiators
allocate our entitic instantiations, and therefore can have no real contentHis ill thought out ontological fantasy could only be achieved by the
wholesale de-categorisation of *Being* and the beings which are instrumental in the
understanding and uncovering process which instantiates and
transubstantiates the very *Being* he is concerned with revealing.
This results in him falling flat upon his face, for the act of
de-categorisation results in the position that *Being* applies indifferently to whatever
is introduced by the existential operator BE in its various conjugational
forms. It transforms and makes the world into a concordance of independently
existing beings that exist as the perceiving and understanding observers who
manage to make contact with other beings in order to instantiate into the
multiplicity of authentic and inauthentic beings *uncovered * in the act of the
dreaded [annexed] Husserlian *object givenness,* which grace or pollute an
authentic or inauthentic *Being,* depending on what way or whichever way their
*ontological truth* has been *grasped* and revealed – as an *ontological truth*
or as an *ontological falsehood* which fractionalises and debases the notion
of *Being* rather than unites it.
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 ---
Heidegger’s obsessional project of destroying the History of Ontology [B and
T 36-49]
Is nonsense in three senses.
(a) One cannot destroy the history of anything, one can only replace it with
another guesswork version that may or may not be a more acceptable version
of diachronic approximation.
(b) (Ontology doesn’t exist – only ontologisers exist.
(c) Heidegger’s attempts to unravel the history of ontology is nothing more
than his attempt to replace one form of metaphysics with another
He complains that the notion of Being has been forgotten, seemingly
forgetting that biblical mentions of it were constantly read out in churches for
about two thousands years before he was born to the present day. [Ac 17:28 *For
in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own
poets have said, For we are also his offspring.*]
He mustn’t have been the diligent bible-student he was cracked up to be –
no wonder he was unceremoniously kicked out of college. Later he was refused
the plum post in religious studies, and no wonder he bore an ongoing grudge
against the Catholic church from that day forth, and attempted to replace the
man in white whiskers with a secularised version of: *The Almighty Being. *
He condemns the ontologists who preceded him. He makes them responsible for
the forgetfulness of *Being* and the negligent replacement of it with the
notion of vorhandenheit. He criticises the common-sense of the philosophical
tradition in recognising that *Being* has no concrete meaning and viewing it
as: *the most general of generalities* [B and T 29.] Then what does he
immediately seek to do? He plagiarises *Dasein* from another thinker and generalises
and compacts the he or she who tries to understand beings into the
generalisation of a vulgarised Daseinic embodiment of humanity, universalised into the
mother of all universalisations – that of the actual and barefaced
generalisation of the whole of the human race.
His was a pathetic attempt to reverse Aristotle’s insight that the notion of
*Being* transcends the various categories into which we human instantiators
allocate our entitic instantiations, and therefore can have no real contentHis ill thought out ontological fantasy could only be achieved by the
wholesale de-categorisation of *Being* and the beings which are instrumental in the
understanding and uncovering process which instantiates and
transubstantiates the very *Being* he is concerned with revealing.
This results in him falling flat upon his face, for the act of
de-categorisation results in the position that *Being* applies indifferently to whatever
is introduced by the existential operator BE in its various conjugational
forms. It transforms and makes the world into a concordance of independently
existing beings that exist as the perceiving and understanding observers who
manage to make contact with other beings in order to instantiate into the
multiplicity of authentic and inauthentic beings *uncovered * in the act of the
dreaded [annexed] Husserlian *object givenness,* which grace or pollute an
authentic or inauthentic *Being,* depending on what way or whichever way their
*ontological truth* has been *grasped* and revealed – as an *ontological truth*
or as an *ontological falsehood* which fractionalises and debases the notion
of *Being* rather than unites it.
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 ---