From: "Bob Guevara" <guevara2-AT-gte.net> Subject: RE: Being and Time-section one Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:04:44 -0800 Joan Stambaugh or MacQuarrie and Robinson? Does it matter for our purpose? I've got the Stambaugh [yes, yes, I know]. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Malcolm Riddoch Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:52 AM To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 11:05 PM, Paul Murphy wrote: > okay when will we start? I thought we already had? Something about time as the horizon of being... As to the question of being, according to Heidegger it lacks an answer in traditional philosophy because the question itself was never rigorously formulated. What do you think of being as 'thisness' or the 'indeterminate immediate' that is at once already obviously meaningful and purely self-evident, yet at the same time an indefinable concept in terms of traditional logic? Malcolm --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005