File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0302, message 101


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005