Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:06:59 -0700 From: Christophe Wall-Romana <kitocwr-AT-uclink4.berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: MB: Re: being and neuter Dear Catweasel: I thoroughly enjoy your reenactment of fictitious maieutic exchanges (although Clare is more interesting than that!), plus you use awesome words like portico and myceliumic, so keep at it! This said, I'm not entirely convinced by your arguments around *is* (the weather example reminded me why I didn't attend a Jesuit school not take much pleasure in analytical philosophy). It doesn't work in my mind because Heidegger's being comprises things which aren't trivially thingish (but to onta does to), like 'worlds' (involved situatednesses), equipment (not just a tool, but, say, the toolness of an object, so that a pencil for me and the same pencil for my cat are two absolutely different beings), even signs (semiotic signifiers) are beings. Dreyfus' _Being-In-The-World: A Commentary on Being and Time, Division 1_ details some of these complexities. Staging a scifi isness-viral-goo is much more to my liking than having to imagine the Freiburg landscape around 1933... Best, Christophe
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005