From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: neither/nor (was: Righteous War? Or bluff?) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:29:58 +0000 michaelP wrote: >I wonder whether it is possible to live in a >political/ethical/aesthetic (non)position of being neither for nor against >'the war' (anything actually, but the war that is now presencing, coming >close, will do nicely); and furthermore, neither for {neither for nor >against} nor against {neither for nor against}? Can this be lived? Can this >be thought? (other than trivially, other than merely claiming/stating it). > >This non-position is in some way, I think, connected with a central >problematic in the thinking of Heidegger; some way connected that I cannot >yet elaborate. I think I can elaborate. Heidegger's philosophy does not imply that we can actually live neutrally. We are already thrown into the world. What is "neutral" is not our actual living, but the ontological structure of that living. As the structure of being-in-the-world in general, it must encompass ANY possible existence in the world, and therefore any possible "side" whatsoever. But some mistake the ontological for the ontic (for example, mistaking being-with for an ontic "community" such as the UN), and therefore try to claim that Heidegger's philosophy has more of an affinity with this or that side. They therefore think that Heidegger's philosophy of living cannot be neutral, without specifying the precise way that it is neutral, and the way it is not. Anthony Crifasi _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005