From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:54:29 EST
Subject: Re: Method



--part1_120.bce2217.29a93f65_boundary

In a message dated 23/02/2002 18:34:22 GMT Standard Time, crifasi-AT-hotmail.com 
writes:

> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
> What seems to follow is that there is indeed a very specific and 
> foundational methodological principle in Heidegger's phenomenology - that 
> Dasein's essence is NOT an existent (but only existence). I don't see how 
> that is any less of a foundational rule than the opposite - that Dasein's 
> essence is an existent, such as soul, mind, matter, etc. This directly 
> bears 
> on the question of whether there is a methodology of rules to Heidegger's 
> phenomenology. In other words, I do not see how one can claim that 
> Heidegger's phenomenology is free of methodological rules if this is the 
> case. Some philosophers choose the principle that our essence is an 
> existent, while Heidegger chooses the principle that our essence is not. 
> Either way, it seems to me to be a beginning rule of methodology upon which 
> the rest of the analytic depends.
> 
> Anthony Crifasi
> 
> 

This is precisely what I have been saying on this list and others for years - 
that Dasein  ('being there' or 'there being') is just a grammatical (and 
extremely clumsy)  trick in order to make existence/being predicational,  
(which is impossible in logic and linguistics, and in sheer commonsense. 
Anthony's observation helps me  blow  the whole Dasein trick apart,  for 
existence doesn't exist - only the things that exist - exist - in the same 
way that only the dancers dance - not the dancing.

Jud Evans.

--part1_120.bce2217.29a93f65_boundary

HTML VERSION: