Chris
I fail to see how you (or anyone) could possibly confuse being with
Dasein or think that Dasein is the basis of all beings either in
Heidegger's early or late works. Heidegger certainly says nothing of
the sort. In fact he explicitly states that being should not be
confused with Dasein (perhaps what Heidegger says himself isn't
relevant?) O.K? With regard to Kant, why not a historical thinker,
what's wrong with that? Philosophers are, in any case, terrified of
criticising their own tradition, this is what makes Heidegger still
so refreshing. For an account of what Heidegger DOES mean by being,
compare with Husserl's catergorial intuition. In H.C.T. Heidegger
states he was really influenced by this text. Also, it seems that
you reading of Heidegger's later being is what Heidegger actually
says about truth, but who knows? Take care
Ecc
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
I fail to see how you (or anyone) could possibly confuse being with
Dasein or think that Dasein is the basis of all beings either in
Heidegger's early or late works. Heidegger certainly says nothing of
the sort. In fact he explicitly states that being should not be
confused with Dasein (perhaps what Heidegger says himself isn't
relevant?) O.K? With regard to Kant, why not a historical thinker,
what's wrong with that? Philosophers are, in any case, terrified of
criticising their own tradition, this is what makes Heidegger still
so refreshing. For an account of what Heidegger DOES mean by being,
compare with Husserl's catergorial intuition. In H.C.T. Heidegger
states he was really influenced by this text. Also, it seems that
you reading of Heidegger's later being is what Heidegger actually
says about truth, but who knows? Take care
Ecc
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------