In a message dated 04/11/2004 14:28:47 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
Nietzsche 1, Will to power as knowledge, ending:
"Die Ueberschattung des Seins durch das Seiende kommt aus dem Sein
selbst, als die Seinsverlassenheit des Seienden im Sinne der
Verweigerung der Wahrheit des Seins."
"The overshadowing of Being by what-is [by things that exclusively
are] comes out of Being itself, as the abandonment-by-Being proper
to what-is, in the sense of the refusal of the truth of Being."
Jud:
Anyone who believes in *Being* is a metaphysicalist. Anything [or at least
the majority of things]
that a metaphysicalist says is conscious or unconscious nonsense. Nietzsche
was a metaphysicalist, therefore
what Nietzsche said was conscious or unconscious nonsense. There is no such
thing as *Being*
As Henk says [correctly]
[*Being*} " is a synthetic a priori, not unlike time."
What Henk fails to mention of course is that *God* too is a synthetic a
priori, not unlike time, and that *God* and *Being* and *Time* are all based
on hypothesis or theory rather than on experiment.
and verification. In that way it is quite feasible to swop over worshiping
one synthetic a priori for another.
So *Being* cannot be *overshadowed* by *what is,* because it doesn't exist
to have the sunlight obscured from it by entitic objects.
There is and can never be any Nietzschean, Heideggerian or Husserlian *Truth
of *Being,* because *Being* is instantiated by the imperfect process of
*Object Givenness* as transacted by human beings, and all human beings transact
*Object givenness differently. *Dasein* cannot instantiate *Being*
because (
A) Dasein is just a figment of Heidegger's feverish imagination.
(B) If Dasein WERE to instantiate *Being,* it would be a bastard fiction
which did not reflect the diversity of individuate *object givennesses* as
severally transacted by human singularities operating as *dealers in the
reification and production of *Being.*.
Rene:
Only through the refusal is there a possible way to the refused
(truth of Being instead of truth of/over beings - metaphysics)
But we ARE there, in the refusal, as the refusing, as the refused.
(No? Look at Jud)
Jud:
A repudiation does not imply *a possible way* to anything.
A refusal of metaphysical nonsense is just the continuance of a state of
knowingness - and an awareness of that which is ridiculous, as opposed
to that which is reasonable and rational.
[...]
"Doch indem wir diesen Schatten ALS Schatten erblicken, stehen wir
schon in einem anderen Licht, ohne das Feuer zu finden, dem sein
Leuchten entstammt. Der Schatten selbst is schon so anderes und keine
Verduesterung:
"However, by catching sight of this shadow AS shadow, we are already
standing in another light, without finding the fire, from which
descends its shining. Thus the shadow itself is already something
different and no glooming:
Jud:
Shadows? Lights? Fires? Shinings? Gloomings? I prefer grown-up philosophy
rather than
illusionist's stage effects. If I want that I can go and see David
Copperfield performing live in Las Vegas.
Perhaps there was something wrong with Nietzsche's eyes - it is said tio be
one of the first symptoms?
YES - it's all very poetic, and in its right place there is no better lover
of poetry than I - but philosophy is NOT THE PLACE.
Philosophy calls for disciplined thinking - that is if it expects to be
taken seriously. The English tongue is quite adequate to describe ANY idea,
and those that claim that that is not the case are conning people and
conning themselves.
Rene:
Now Hoelderlin's poem to mother earth is cited, with the holy shadow,
in which lives the herdsman, that is: one who does not live only for
himself.
Jud:
All well and good - but to WHAT PURPOSE?
Rene:
But only by turning the shadow, can there arrive a light into the
darkening (What is called thinking; Hoelderlin's 'holy night'), and
into the darkened words, so that they again may start shining and
sounding, and melt the ice.
Jud:
It's a load of poetical schmutter when it is hijacked into the service of a
philosophy-manqué.
Hoelderlin would turn in his grave if he knew that his fine poetry was being
debased into the grubby coin
of Heideggerian rhetorical exchange. ;-)
Rene:
Apologies for my all-too-human indignation, Jud.
Jud:
At least [unlike some others] you ARE human Rene. ;-)
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 ---