From: "Jud Evans" <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: To Onta.
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:14:36 -0000



----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan O'Byrne" <sofga-AT-clubi.ie>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: To Onta.


Its not 'To onta' its 'Ta Onta' - ta is the neuter plural article
(nominative
and accusative): at least get that right before criticising Heidegger's
apparent total misunderstanding of basic Greek'.

Jud:
Sorry about the 'to' instead of 'ta'  [which I assure you was a genuine
typo] as can plainly be seen and verified  by my correct use of the word in
a subsequent paragraph.
My excuse?  Poor attention, plus the fact that I am so used to typing: 'to
be.'  This apart, it still does not mean that Heidegger was right to look in
a leaf  to find 'a thing' called 'is,' or to conclude that when Aristotle
reports that there is a science that studies 'being as being,' that he is
not referring to 'being' as a noun, for had he read Seneca [Ad Lucillum,
58 -5-6] he would have seen that he translated 'on' as 'quad est.' and
Seneca was  Rome's leading intellectual figure in the mid-1st century AD.

My later passage makes it obvious that 'to' was a typo, for here I have
spelt it correctly. viz:

"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.]
On the basis of this I find that your singling out of an obvious typo as
basis for criticism rather nitpicking, especially where the main claim
concerning Heidegger's error [whether it was out of his genuine unknowing or
wishful
thinking]  is ignored.


Jud Evans.





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