Subject: RE: Heidegger on Kant for Rene
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:50:29 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 april 2003 19:09
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: Heidegger on Kant for Rene




Rene wrote:


I now encounter ontological difference EVERYWHERE in Heidegger.
It is always like that when a topic is focused.

"What is called thinking": Das Seiende ist. That which is, is.
A GA note: "The ontical and the ontological hard to one another.

Jud's favourite: where is the 'is' of the leaf? The leaf is green,
small or big, round or long etc., but the 'is' of the leaf cannot
be found. But undoubtedly the leaf IS. But this 'is' is, so to say,
not something that belongs to the leaf, but is almost *against* it.


Jud:

Dear Rene:

Look!  I just sententially existentialised you without an "is" just by using your name "Rene."

rene:
As light is only possible in the dark, words are only in silence.
The fundamental 'is' is silent. You already 'felt' it, before thinking of me.
Otherwise we would not be able to succeed in saying 'is' all the time.


Look out! Duck your head! Here comes another example!  :-)

"The Leaf."
See I just sententially existentialised a new stage-play by the finger-twiddling ghost of Ionescu.

Whoops! Run for your life! Here comes another.  :-)

"See! A tree with a single leaf."

"The leaf is green."  In English - " Das Blatt ist gr=FCn. " in German and " L=F6v =E4r gr=F6n" in Svenska - it works exactly the same.
"Is" - "ist" - =E4r" -  they point to the WAY a thing is - not its existential  occurrence.

rene
Of course one can speak of things that don't exist, or not yet, or not anymore. Of possible wars for instance. Quine made fun of possible doors, but I think he was stupid in Buckle's way. A possible war can be more real than our daily real. Or more real than the very real one bullet that hits one. Would you call death real or existent, and but not the possibility to die that every Dasein carries with it as long as it is Dasein?


rene: 
You don't need an "is"  or an "ist" or an "=E4r" to existentialise anything Rene. You need it a lot to indicate the WAYS in which a thing exists once it has been existentialised by the name of the referent in a sentence, as in

"The leaf" [the existentialisation of the referent] "is" [indicates what comes next is the way it exists] "green" [a description of one of the ways it exists.]

Although this is "beginners' stuff - Heidegger could not grasp this.

rene:
I see you share the misconception of so many that Heidegger missed the 'cold fire' of Frege's logic c.s. But no, he has worked through it all, through everything.


He confused, [perhaps because of his early Jesuitical training)  the theological use of "is" as it was/is used by theologians in the sense that: "God is," or God supposedly saying: "I am,"

rene:
He lost that God, so that the (lost) 'is' of that God is an experienced one. For Hoelderlin, Hegel, Nietzsche a.o. it's similar.

  which were deliberate ungramaticalisms employed for dramatic effect, the word "exists" having connotations of mere survival  and certainly not considered a word suitable to communicate the sublime quality of "existence" that could be attributed to the Almighty. Then there is the "one off"  semantic deformation of Descartes' I think therefore I am," which was a literal translation of the Latin form,  which brought with it a damaged version as far as English is concerned, which practically all Latinists now agree should be: "I think therefore I exist." The Shakespearean, "To be or not to be" was also employed for poetical and dramatic effect. These few dramaturgical linguistic irregularities, which one can count on the finger of one hand, may have confused Heidegger. Who in spite of what anyone says, didn't need much to confuse him, either in his philosophical life, his personal life, or in his political life.

rene:
For everything you bring here, I've found answers in his books.

Heidegger failed to understand that the "is" ONLY EVER refers to the WAY that a leaf exists, and NOT the fact or occurrence that it exists, which is actualised
by the words "The leaf," or "Rene," or  "The Antwerp Hilton, Groenplaats, Antwerp B2000, Belgium."

rene:
I can't elaborate, but thinking along these lines must lead to something like the Blair Witch project: knowing that there is something, but without means to determine what, and intolerable fear. Suicide. Nietzsche's thought of Eternal return as the thought that compells to decisions. As a former listmember once said: i don't know what we're heading for, but it sure is no Renaissance.


jud:
Undoubtedly the leaf IS - a leaf. But the reason for the sentence, is not to repeat something that we already know, (existential information that has already been supplied by the words "the leaf" - but that it is a green leaf.  Hence: "The leaf is green."

Those that do not grasp this simple semantic truth will never understand where Heidegger went wrong, and how the WHOLE of his philosophy is founded upon a simple grammatical misunderstanding.

Sometimes I wish you were right. Well...no.

As for: "That which is, is." the correct [de-Heideggerianized ] semantic rendering of this corrupt form is: "That which is is  - that which is."


rene:
He considered that too, yes.

cheers

rene

HTML VERSION:

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 april 2003 19:09
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: Heidegger on Kant for Rene

Rene wrote:


I now encounter ontological difference EVERYWHERE in Heidegger.
It is always like that when a topic is focused.

"What is called thinking": Das Seiende ist. That which is, is.
A GA note: "The ontical and the ontological hard to one another.

Jud's favourite: where is the 'is' of the leaf? The leaf is green,
small or big, round or long etc., but the 'is' of the leaf cannot
be found. But undoubtedly the leaf IS. But this 'is' is, so to say,
not something that belongs to the leaf, but is almost *against* it.


Jud:

Dear Rene:

Look!  I just sententially existentialised you without an "is" just by using your name "Rene." 

rene: 

As light is only possible in the dark, words are only in silence.

The fundamental 'is' is silent. You already 'felt' it, before thinking of me.

Otherwise we would not be able to succeed in saying 'is' all the time.
 

 
Look out! Duck your head! Here comes another example!  :-)

"The Leaf."
See I just sententially existentialised a new stage-play by the finger-twiddling ghost of Ionescu.

Whoops! Run for your life! Here comes another.  :-)

"See! A tree with a single leaf."

"The leaf is green."  In English - " Das Blatt ist gr=FCn. " in German and " L=F6v =E4r gr=F6n" in Svenska - it works exactly the same.
"Is" - "ist" - =E4r" -  they point to the WAY a thing is - not its existential  occurrence. 

rene 

Of course one can speak of things that don't exist, or not yet, or not anymore. Of possible wars for instance. Quine made fun of possible doors, but I think he was stupid in Buckle's way. A possible war can be more real than our daily real. Or more real than the very real one bullet that hits one. Would you call death real or existent, and but not the possibility to die that every Dasein carries with it as long as it is Dasein?

rene:  
You don't need an "is"  or an "ist" or an "=E4r" to existentialise anything Rene. You need it a lot to indicate the WAYS in which a thing exists once it has been existentialised by the name of the referent in a sentence, as in

"The leaf" [the existentialisation of the referent] "is" [indicates what comes next is the way it exists] "green" [a description of one of the ways it exists.]

Although this is "beginners' stuff - Heidegger could not grasp this.

rene:

I see you share the misconception of so many that Heidegger missed the 'cold fire' of Frege's logic c.s. But no, he has worked through it all, through everything. 

He confused, [perhaps because of his early Jesuitical training)  the theological use of "is" as it was/is used by theologians in the sense that: "God is," or God supposedly saying: "I am,"

rene: 

He lost that God, so that the (lost) 'is' of that God is an experienced one. For Hoelderlin, Hegel, Nietzsche a.o. it's similar.

 

  which were deliberate ungramaticalisms employed for dramatic effect, the word "exists" having connotations of mere survival  and certainly not considered a word suitable to communicate the sublime quality of "existence" that could be attributed to the Almighty. Then there is the "one off"  semantic deformation of Descartes' I think therefore I am," which was a literal translation of the Latin form,  which brought with it a damaged version as far as English is concerned, which practically all Latinists now agree should be: "I think therefore I exist." The Shakespearean, "To be or not to be" was also employed for poetical and dramatic effect. These few dramaturgical linguistic irregularities, which one can count on the finger of one hand, may have confused Heidegger. Who in spite of what anyone says, didn't need much to confuse him, either in his philosophical life, his personal life, or in his political life. 

rene: 

For everything you bring here, I've found answers in his books.

 
Heidegger failed to understand that the "is" ONLY EVER refers to the WAY that a leaf exists, and NOT the fact or occurrence that it exists, which is actualised
by the words "The leaf," or "Rene," or  "The Antwerp Hilton, Groenplaats, Antwerp B2000, Belgium."

rene: 

I can't elaborate, but thinking along these lines must lead to something like the Blair Witch project: knowing that there is something, but without means to determine what, and intolerable fear. Suicide. Nietzsche's thought of Eternal return as the thought that compells to decisions. As a former listmember once said: i don't know what we're heading for, but it sure is no Renaissance.

jud: 
Undoubtedly the leaf IS - a leaf. But the reason for the sentence, is not to repeat something that we already know, (existential information that has already been supplied by the words "the leaf" - but that it is a green leaf.  Hence: "The leaf is green."

Those that do not grasp this simple semantic truth will never understand where Heidegger went wrong, and how the WHOLE of his philosophy is founded upon a simple grammatical misunderstanding. 

Sometimes I wish you were right. Well...no. 

 
As for: "That which is, is." the correct [de-Heideggerianized ] semantic rendering of this corrupt form is: "That which is is  - that which is."

rene: 

He considered that too, yes.

 

cheers

 

rene