File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9812, message 115


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005