Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 20:05:08 -0700
From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
Subject: Re: Aehrewurm


James Michael Drayton wrote:

> In message <3.0.32.19980503154653.006a68e8-AT-rain.org>, Bob/Diane
> <guevara-AT-rain.org> writes
> >>Is the thinker in fact separate from the thought? Perhaps not.
> >
> >Perhaps you can suggest a way of thinking about it.  I assert that
> >"thinking" is distinct from being thought up by the currents of
> throwness.

I'm sorry Bob, perhaps I missed some previous discussion that lead up to
your statement about "being thought up by the currents of throwness."
I'm not following you hear. Could you elaborate on this distinction? I
don't understand what you mean by "being thought up by the currents of
throwness."

> If not, then two separate persons couldn't ever be truly said to have
> the "same
> thought." Any easy shoe-in for solipsism if ever there was one.

Robert, this must just be one of those days I'm particularly dull. I
don't understand your point here. It seems as if you are treating a
"thought" as if it were some kind of free-floating, interpretation-free
"thing" that exists some how or other by itself. Is that what you mean?
And even if this is true, and I don't think it is, I don't understand
how you get to solipsism by not "having" the same thought. Unless you
mean that two people "having" the same interpretation-independent
thought indicates somehow that these two people are accessing some sort
of objective reality that is interpretation-independent.

Michael Staples






     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---