From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:29:48 EST Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one --part1_127.251ace5e.2ba85d2c_boundary In a message dated 18/03/2003 05:41:35 GMT Standard Time, bill.hord-AT-hccs.edu writes: > Bill Hord writes: > > What do you all think about the interpretation of dasein as a verbal, that > is, as referring to an 'activity', and thus similarly referring to being as > an activity? > > This interpretation, which I understand as basically Aristotelian, is > consonant with Heidegger's critique of Descartes and Cartesian platonism. > > Whether this is all agreeable or not, I think Heidegger in section 1 is > opening a space in which he can approach the question of being. So, all > preinterpretations of being, including this one, are in a sense premature. > > Bill Hord Jud: Bravo! Of course it is! Phew! Someone with a bit of sense at last! I've been saying this on the list for years. He chose the irregular separable intransitive verb Dasein as his ontological Perry Mason deliberately, in order to conflate the human existential ACTIVITY of "being there" in the world, with the existential FACT of being there in the world. He uses this to great success, not only to enable him to introduce the farcical concept of the "ontological difference", where no such difference exists, but in order to pull the wool over the eyes of some very clever people, (such as we have on this list, ) by then proceeding to employ the word Dasein as a PROPER NAME which changes the verbal action word - to a noun - to the name of a THING rather than that of an ACTIVITY. The very word "Being" contains the same semantic syncretic schemozzle of "activity" and "presence," which is precisely why he/his translators uses the damn word in practically every sentence of "Being and Time." Thus the English verb "being" is cunningly transformed into a noun - a noun which has no referent - for "Being" is not the NAME of some entity, but the activity of a human being or something that is...a being - being someone or something. regards, Jud Evans --part1_127.251ace5e.2ba85d2c_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Bill Hord writes:
What do you all think about the interpretation of dasein as a verbal, that is, as referring to an 'activity', and thus similarly referring to being=20as an activity?
This interpretation, which I understand as basically Aristotelian, is consonant with Heidegger's critique of Descartes and Cartesian platonism.
Whether this is all agreeable or not, I think Heidegger in section 1 is=20opening a space in which he can approach the question of being. So, all preinterpretations of being, including this one, are in a sense premature.
Bill Hord
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005