From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:00:37 +0100 hi jim yea, I was not happy at all with this mail of course are people who think differently as we think most attractive (particularly in a Popperian view!, although he (!) (an some of his adepts, was sometimes not able to follow this idea, at least with regard to heidegger, hegel, marx, plato etc.) I was trying to say that in order to understand another thinker (another person) you need some kind of affinity with her (or him). I was trying to make a difference between openness to other thinkers and polemics. You put it better: > I'm not suggesting that we spend our time responding to straw-man arguments, or arguments that FAIL to understand the views addressed.< What follows is interesting for the kind of _discussion_ we are having for years, withought kowing each other face-to-face (or only some of us). How are we as thinkers-in-cyberspace? Mostly in the way of _fama_ (Geruechtekueche!)? >The reason I spend time on this point, however modest and niggling it may seem, is that it signals a very important point about the 'info' transmitted by these electronic threads. Namely, these threads suffer from the same kind of distorting noise from which orally transmitted threads of 'info' suffer. A tells B that p; B tells C that 'p''; C tells D that ''p''', ..., etc. until what Z is told bears little resemblance to what A told B.< kind regards rafael --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005