From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Method
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:27:33 


>From: HealantHenry-AT-aol.com
>Reply-To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: Method
>Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:46:18 EST
>
>My point is that you have stated this, that Heidegger "gegandstands"
>existence and essence. It seems to me (very informally here, it's even more
>than a dissertation topic in breadth) that it is not necessarily the case
>that the relationship in Heidegger's thinking re existence and essence
>(Wesen) is what analytic philosophy wants to put into a conventionally
>logical relationship of opposites.

Yes, but I didn't oppose essence and existence. I opposed "Dasein's essence 
is an existent" to "Dasein's essence is not an existent". Heidegger clearly 
holds the latter, while almost every philosopher before him holds the 
former. If this is the case, then Heidegger seems to have a very specific 
starting point upon which the rest of his analytic depends - that Dasein's 
essence is existence, not some existent. If this is not a beginning "rule" 
of his phenomenological analytic, then I'm not sure what to call it.

Anthony Crifasi

>Heidegger's thinking on the Wesen of things, thinking, technology, the work
>of art, and on and on, leads me to suggest that such a crisp and succinct
>formulation, and such an attribution of fundamentals, actually belies the
>philosophical trouble Heidegger embraced in thinking.
>
>Am I wrong that it was Sartre who originally claimed this simple 
>opposition?
>And that Heidegger followed that by announcing that he is NOT an
>existentialist (and the Letter on Humanism)?
>
>Kindest regards,
>hen
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



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