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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005