Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:46:51 +0100 From: Rene de Bakker <rene.de.bakker-AT-uba.uva.nl> Subject: Re: two third pro-war? At 16:23 11-2-03 +0000, you wrote: >Rene de Bakker wrote: > >>ok, the goal of US: national prosperity in terms of industry and military >> the goal of Saddam: national prosperity in terms of mr Saddam >> >>is your worry that i prefer Saddam? I don't. I would prefer the US, if >>it stopped lying. > >I never thought that you prefer Saddam. Very few people prefer Saddam. But I >strongly suspect that you are not in support of the impending war, and your >re-explanation above, far from being neutral, only re-affirms my suspicions, >even without your last sentence. What is the "explanation" put forth by the >anti-war side? Precisely that US motivations consist merely in "national >prosperity in terms of industry (especially oil) and military." Far from >following Nietzsche, you are merely presenting an anti-war argument under >the MASK of a mere "explanation" of a "pattern." And now you put me in the anti-war group, i'm not part of any group, Anthony. I know cattle is more easily transportable, but you'll have to satisfy your ethical needs without me. also this one is very funny: >>then the ethical in that sense is their worry, i don't wanna have >>anything to do with it. i see *every* writing on ethics as lying, >>to oneself and to others. > >Yes, because you are still as stuck in traditional metaphysics as everyone >before Heidegger. what kind of logic was here at work, Anthony? Wake up, we live in the a-metaphysical, a-ethical age. Let America make an a-metaphysical, a-ethical effort, only it has the power - that would be something. You are opposed to ethics in terms of standards >("standarded intellectuals"), values, criteria, etc. Fine, but that has >nothing to do with the kind of ethics I describe above, and if you read >Levinas, you might learn that. You are still mired in 19th century >metaphysical categorical distinctions and criticisms. > >Anthony Crifasi > >>you seem to think that i must be responsible for what others bring forth. >>why don't you at last start to READ my posts, instead of bringing the >>same again and again. >> >>Derrida had his own 'solution' for the inevitability of contamination. >>You don't have to agree, but I hear nothing. So that makes to me >>the question unevitable: what do you want? A real discussion, or just >>nailing me. I heard nothing from you since the last time, when we had >>a 'discussion' on Zuhandenheit and Vorhandenheit. You just ran away >>into Abhandenheit, I guess. >>Let me make another - positive - suggestion: not interested? ----------------------------------- drs. Rene de Bakker Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam Afdeling Catalogisering tel. 020-5252368 --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005