On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, David Schenk wrote:
> As a very quick response to one of Lois Shawver's worries, I don't
> consider Heidegger a poet or a poetic philosopher; I consider him a
> philosopher, plain and simple. I do think _BT_ is trying to get at the
> way Dasein *really* is, and I also think that amounts to a kind of
> metpahysics of Dasein. Maybe it's just that in my training "metaphysics"
> and "ontology" are quite nearly synonymous, and neither of them is in any
> way a 'dirty word'. I understand that in his later books and papers
> Heidegger eschewed 'metaphysical thinking' and even 'philosophy' (I never
> did understand what he meant by all that), but in his early work he _was_
> a metaphysician, and a very good one at that. After all, this is the man
> who wrote the classic "What Is Metaphysics?"
Because I want to read Heidegger in the way that makes most sense to me,
and I believe that language cannot capture or represent reality. It
'discloses' it, in the sense that when I describe something, that
beautiful old antique table with the carving, for example, I disclose it
differently than when I describe it as that broken down old table. My
language shows an aspect, brings to light a certain reading of the
world. That's how I understand Heidegger to have chosen to abandon the
mirror metaphor of description and theory and to have elected, instead,
to use words like disclose, reveal, illuminate.
No?
..Lois Shawver
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------