Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:17:56 +0100 From: Rene de Bakker <rene.de.bakker-AT-uba.uva.nl> Subject: Re: the o/o gulf At 19:46 19-3-03 +0000, Anthony Crifasi wrote: >Rene de Bakker wrote: > >>The startling similarities between your political/ontical and your >>philosophical/ontological interpretations make me pose this question: >> >>Are authenticity and non-authenticity in your view not ontological >>ways of being-in-the-world, because 'BOTH' are ways of >>being-in-the-world? > >Yes both are ways of being-in-the-world. Is your point that this shows an >ontological "preference" for one way over the other, even though both are >ways of being-in-the-world? No that is not my point. You left out the beginning of my post:: At 15:01 19-3-03 +0000, Anthony Crifasi wrote: >The ontic can provide a "direction" to the ontological, >but the ontological can be neither peaceful and non-conflictual, nor >warlike, precisely because BOTH of these are ways of being-in-the-world. One just cannot speak of 'the ontological' this way, without getting into contradictions. And falling prey to Jud's razor blade: it does not exist. That also means: it cannot be used as grammatical subject. at least not without prohibitions made. Formally taken, you talk of it the way Duns Scotus spoke of 'ens': either something is finite, or infinite; either caused, or uncaused (but of itself none of both) Together such oppositions comprise the whole range of 'ens', and therefore belong, besides unum verum and bonum, to the so-called transcendentalia. It's a problematic that goes back to Aristotle. Heidegger treats them in that very early Habilitationsschrift on ps.-Scotus, so that, when he started a completely other problematic in BT, he knew he had to find other ways of speaking than Scotus' or Kant's, although he did not succeed completely. I have an article by Coriando on formal indication and language from BT to GA65, that I think would be very clarifying. She for instance compares a Heidegger and a Kant sentence, as to their grammar. But it's in German, and I cannot translate everything. I had thought of a particular Michael, but he sank too deep in the anti-mud? 'Geschichte', still something else than history, seems to be something completely missing, in everyone, not only in you. All I can do is showing the consequences of it. Therefore Destruktion is so essential. All that is not destructed, remains, without anyone knowing. The rational animal has no control over it, however broad he makes himself. rene This kind of "preference" is not ethical in any >way. All authenticity means is the integration of our discovered existential >structure into ontic being-in-the-world, thereby making existence our "own". >But this can be applied to ANY way of being-in-the-world. A Nazi can be >authentic. So can a Communist. Or a liberal democrat. So this kind of >preference is not anything which can "decide" between two ontic sides. That >would be an "ontic" preference. > >Anthony Crifasi > >_________________________________________________________________ >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 --- > > ----------------------------------- drs. Rene de Bakker Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam Afdeling Catalogisering tel. 020-5252368 --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005