File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 180


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:59:56 +0000


Paul Murphy wrote:

>okay, but can you define 'ontic'?

In general, ontic means having to do with beings or factual things, whereas 
ontological means having to do with the Being of beings. In traditional 
philosophy, the Being of beings was explained in terms of beings. For 
example, how would a physicist explicate my existence? They would probably 
say that I'm a mass of atoms held together by atomic forces. A psychologist 
might go into my memories, repressed experiences, etc. A sociologist might 
explain my being in terms of societal structures and phenomena. All these 
are how a scientific would probably answer the question: why is there 
something rather than nothing. But they are all answers in terms of beings 
(atoms, memories, society, etc.).

>I think it is best to avoid fruitless dualisms.  They infest our manner of
>thinking, especially where politics is concerned.  Because the insistence 
>on
>dichotomy is also the insistence on simplicity.  That simplicity can be
>communicated to a mass who must OBEY or be
>ignored/discarded/refused/isolated.  Life is not black and white but shades
>of grey, propaganda is black and white

You must understand that you cannot read this into Heidegger. Heideggerian 
phenomenology does not rule out either that life is black and white, or that 
life is shades of grey. It allows for both, and provides the ground for 
either. Your distinction between saying either that life is black and white 
or that life is shades of grey is itself a dualism, and therefore is an 
ontic distinction. It therefore cannot be projected into an ontological 
analytics.

Anthony Crifasi

- monsters and Gods, demons and
>angels, baby eating demi-goblins attacking kultur, invading weak,
>defenceless she-countries full of innocent victims.  If they aren't 
>innocent
>it is necessary to invent that innocence, if they don't exist at all, they
>can be created, when we kill the enemies innocent they are 'collateral
>damage'.  Countries that our side attacks are depicted as in need of
>'humanitarian intervention', demagogues bypassing aid to their cronies and
>creatures.  Rogue states have dictators when they are enemies, when they 
>are
>our friends they have a 'special relationship' and are led by 'strong men'.
>(and so on...)

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005