From: "Jud Evans" <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: To Onta. Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 00:46:49 -0000 To Onta. Ancient Greek neutral plural form of the noun 'being' = 'beings' Not to be in any way confused [as Heidegger did] with the verb 'Being.' One is mystified with Heidegger concerning his apparent total misunderstanding of basic grammar. The fact that he didn't have a clue about the meaning of the 'is' word is well attested in the infamous passage from BT, and turned Heidegger into something of a figure of fun amongst his critics. To set the scene and give an insight into the man's total unknowingness of the basics of grammar, [certainly where existential syntax and semantics were concerned anyway.] Here he is admitting to his ignorance of the meaning and function of the 'IS' word in his own words in Being and Time. Is bad grammar a characteristic of Heideggerian exposition I wonder? Perhaps a survey is called for? Heidegger: "The leaf is green." I find the green of the leaf in the leaf itself. But where is the "is"? I say, nevertheless, the leaf "is"- it itself, the leaf. Consequently the "is" must belong to the visible leaf itself. But I do not "see" the "is" in the leaf, for it would have to be coloured or spatially formed. Where and what "is" the "is"? "Now ask yourself this question: How can a man admit to a misunderstanding of one conjugation of the verb 'BE,' [the third person singular present,] and then have the cheek to go ahead and write a book about another conjugation of the same 'verb' [the continuous present] of the 'BE' word - i.e, 'Being?' It is mind-boggling, for it is like someone admitting to an ignorance of the meaning of the word 'swims,' and then proceeding to write a tome on 'swimming.' To compound the matter, as if his nescience wasn't already enough, he appears to have deliberately confused the meaning of the ancient Greek version of 'Being' [noun] 'ta onta' - the neutral plural of the noun 'being' - thus= beings.' with the word that obsessed him for the rest of his life - 'Being.' [gerundial verb.] His confusion starts when he reads that Aristotle reports that there is a science that studies 'being as being,' We can read it again in this section from Metaphysics IV, I. I] Aristotle uses the Greek present participle 'to on.' [Being - a noun] Aristotle: "THERE is a science which investigates 'being as being' and the attributes which belongs to this in virtue of its own nature." Jud: This means that certain investigators are studying being [to onta = material beings in the original Greek : see definition above]- in other words they are studying 'the nature of the material' from which beings are constructed or formed. Aristotle: "Now this is not the same as any of the so-called special sciences; for none of these others treats universally of 'being as being.' They cut off a part of being and investigate the attribute of this part; this is what the mathematical sciences for instance do. Now since we are seeking the first principles and the highest causes, clearly there must be some thing to which these belong in virtue of its own nature. If then those who sought the elements of existing things were seeking these same principles, it is necessary that the elements must be elements of being not by accident but just because it is being. Therefore it is of being as being that we also must grasp the first causes." Jud: It is absolutely crystal clear here in the above passage that Aristotle is describing a general scientific branch of knowledge and that those people to whom he refers are investigating 'the nature of existing matter' and in his last paragraph he makes it plain that it is precisely the universal elements of being [substance] that must be grasped. It is evident that Aristotle is referring to the ' ultimate substratum, which is no longer predicated of anything else," which he refers to later on in Part VIII of the same work, when in the same section and at the same time he alludes to: "that which, being a 'this', is also separable and of this nature is the shape or form of each thing." Remember in this passage that Aristotle is talking about the plural neuter noun 'to onta' [beings] throughout, and is NOT using the term in the sense of the so-called 'verb' ' 'Being' or even worse some ''gerundial verb' dredged up by Heidegger as a contrivance to produce some quasi-existential dimension, [we won't even mention dasein] which was in no way intended by Aristotle. The illegitimate word 'Being' appears no less than 1,141 times in BT, which represents almost 4% of the whole work, and peppers the conversations of Heideggerians like the lead-filled dum-dum bullets from some first world war clapped-out etymological machine-gun. In BT Heidegger reluctantly concedes that: "Sometimes the Greeks simply identified this with ta onta (beings)." But then goes onto to add: "Beings can show themselves from themselves in various ways, depending on the mode of access to them. The possibility even exists that they can show themselves as they are not in themselves" This transcendentalist jaw-jaw has got nothing at all do with what Aristotle is saying, for he was simply reporting the fact that there were a collection of people who got together to talk about 'being as being.' In other words Heidegger is suggesting by these unwarranted comments and spurious interpolations, that the old Greek philosopher was some kind of proto-existential transcendentalist. God in Heaven Forbid! Jud Evans. --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005