File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 155


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005