Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:37:21 -0400
Subject: RE: A minor question


Jeff,

     Thanks for the help. "That we just look at it" seems to fit well.

Ed

>Ed,
>
>Heidegger's term that is being translated as "sheerly" by Stambaugh is
>puren.  One might try "purely,"  but that doesn't quite do it.  What
>seems to be intended is that the object is being viewed independently of
>its relation to a world, independently of how it is situated in a
>totality of relations.  Macquarrie and Robinson translate this very well
>with saying "that we just look at it."
>
>-Jeff Powell
>
>	-----Original Message-----
>	From:	Ed Wall [SMTP:ewall-AT-umich.edu]
>	Sent:	Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:55 AM
>	To:	heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>	Subject:	A minor question
>
>	Folks
>
>	   I was reading on page 148 in the Stambaugh translation of
>Being and
>	Time, and came across this passage "...(omitted to save
>bandwidth) .. This
>	leveling down of the primordial "as" of circumspect
>interpretation to the
>	as of the determination of objective presence is the specality
>of the
>	statement. Only in this way does it gain the possibility of a
>pointing
>	something out in a way that we sheerly look at it."
>
>	   My question is about "sheerly". What does Heidegger (or
>Stambaugh) mean
>	by "sheerly?" There seem to be a number of possibilities most of
>which
>	don't 'feel' right (possibly a bad criterion for me in my
>present
>	understanding of Heidegger).
>
>	Ed Wall
>
>
>
>
>	     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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