A critical, fundamental question about H.'s thought


In response to Lois Shawver, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Getting started is a problem.
>
> You can probably read some of the later stuff profitably without knowing
> Being and Time. Say, "Introduction to Metaphysics"
>

Lois' post has prompted me to ask a question that has been troubling
me for some time. I've been perusing on Heidegger's works for about 3
years now. It's my understanding that H considered that philosophy
made a fundamental mistake by "forgetting" the ontological difference
bewteen Being and the quality of "is-ness" which is characteristic of
all beings. No problem at this point.

What I find particulary problematic in H.'s thought is highlisghted by
his reading of Nietzsche as the "last metaphysician" in whose works
"nothing remains of Being as such." I concur that in N.'s hands,
nothing does remain of "Being as such" since N. sees that as the most
empty of all notions/concepts.

I have often been tempted to ask if "does Heidegger's emphasis upon Being
entail that he continues to believe in grammar?" To what degree is
this emphasis of he determined/conditioned/informed by his theism?
I ask these questions since I do think H. ever adequately addressed
them or considered the possibility that N. might be correct about
the notion/concept of Being.


--- from list [email protected] ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: