File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0304, message 334


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: its a new world order stupid
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:31:20 +0000


John Foster wrote:

>When are you going to be happy? U should be now that the war in Iraq is
>almost over. You won. So what now is your issue?

My main issue from the beginning has been the distortion of Heidegger's 
fundamental ontology by several on this list in order to lend ontological 
support for the anti-war side of this whole Iraq thing. That is why I 
entered the discussion a few weeks back before the war started. Ontological 
existentials like mitsein and anxiety were being twisted into ontic 
facticities like a UN consensus and worries over ontic existents, like an 
ecosystem, in an attempt to give these ontic positions ontological priority 
over the other side. Then Rene responded by appealing to the ambiguity of 
the ontic/ontological distinction, and in the same breath criticized me for 
focusing on truth as rightness and not truth as openness, when the latter 
distinction depends on the very o/o distinction that he was trying to say 
was ambiguous in the first place! And on top of that, he posted a text in 
support of his contention, in which Heidegger explicitly says that that 
ambiguity is due precisely to the non-onticity of that distinction in the 
first place, thereby affirming once again the o/o distinction! Meanwhile, 
you were trying to turn being-in-the-world and states-of-mind into ontic 
feelings that come and go, and authenticity into something to do with 
self-love, while Malcolm also tried to connect mitsein with the UN, and 
sorge with happiness and peace, as opposed to suffering!

This is the reason that this whole Iraq discussion has been invaluable - it 
has brought to light some very common underlying distortions of Heidegger's 
fundamental ontology, misinterpretations which violate the very distinction 
between the ontic and the ontological in the first place. Such 
misinterpretations give the mistaken impression that Heidegger's ontology 
lends an enlightened status to certain ontic positions, such as 
environmentalism, globalism, or anti-capitalism, when it does absolutely 
nothing of the kind. So you asked what my issue is? My issue is with people 
who deem themselves philosophically more enlightened than the masses due to 
supposed ontological support from Heidegger for their ontic positions, when 
that supposed ontological support is based on a fundamental misunderstanding 
of Heidegger in the first place. I am Christian, but I do not pretend that 
Christianity has any kind of ontological support from Heidegger's analytic. 
There must be a certain departure from Heidegger before ethics, much less 
Christianity, can be anything but a mere ontic issue.

Anthony Crifasi

>Personally I think the UN reflects the authentic and supports the  
>dimension
>depth of the ontological (categories which parallel 'life worlds'); that is
>da-sein. We are already born into this world with these 'structures in
>place' ...well in some respects some of us our. My 86 year old day, may be
>not. The UN did not exist when he was born.
>
>I have to go an'yawn,
>
>cheers
>
>jf

_________________________________________________________________
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