From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:18:07 EST Subject: Re: Being & Time Part 2 --part1_36.3d3700ae.2bbadd7f_boundary In a message dated 01/04/2003 00:16:04 GMT Daylight Time, jts0803odon-AT-yahoo.com writes: > Subj:Re: Being & Time Part 2 > Date:01/04/2003 00:16:04 GMT Daylight Time > From: jts0803odon-AT-yahoo.com (Jason Stuart) > Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A> > To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > > > > GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Jud: Previously > You can now see that by the a priori nominalisation or referentialisation > the entity which corresponds to the word "leaf" it is existentialised for > the purposes of making the proposition that it "is green." Hence the role > of the "is" can be seen as indicating this modalic information [its > greenness] and not that of existentialising the entity which corresponds or > is referentialised by the word "leaf," because that has already been > JS: > don't understand why you're insisting on this distinction; speaking > philosophically or not, languages are redundant. The use of any form of > "to be" indicates existence as much as it indicates any supposed > "modality." Just because a word indicates one meaning doesn't mean it > can't indicate another. > > I'm afraid I don't understand what you are getting at here? You say that " languages are redundant," yet you are using it to write and read messages to the list? The reason that I am insisting on this distinction; is because Heidegger never understood that "IS" refers or attributes to the words [that follow it in the predicate] a description of the WAYS an entity exists, or the STATES which an entity undergoes as it exists in the world, rather than asserting the simple the fact of its being present in the world in the first place. The relevant passage revealing Heidegger's dark night of the ontological soul can be read at: <A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gesprachmittheidegger.htm">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gesprachmittheidegger.htm</A> As for "to be" - it only has one form, which is the infinitive - which "to be" is - for "to be" is a conjugate of the verb BE. It is the morphed forms of BE which add inflections showing person, number, gender, tense, aspect, etc.You obviously mean to refer to the forms of the verb "Be" I suppose? It is usual for each conjugate of the BE-word to indicate different numerical and temporal meanings as part of its semantic payload. If a foreigner with a very basic knowledge of English generated a sentence such as: " He were in school now," where the wrong conjugate of BE is inserted in place of "is" (if the real meaning of the sentence is meant to b: "He is in school now, " then the addressee would not know whether the speaker meant that the "He" should be "They," or the "were" should be "was or "will be." etc. Heidegger's lack of linguistic understand and his grammatically challenged state regarding the functions of BE led him inexorably to the ontological cult tome The Olde Curiosity Shoppe we know as B & T. Of course you can dream up your own idiolect or private language and attribute any meaning that takes your fancy to words, but if you wish to communicate your ideas unambiguously to others, then you need to employ the words with correspond with the meanings generally accepted by the language group or community of which you are a member or in which you are participating. cheers, Jud Evans. --part1_36.3d3700ae.2bbadd7f_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Subj:Re: Being & Time Part 2
Date:01/04/2003 00:16:04 GMT Daylight Time
From: jts0803odon-AT-yahoo.com (Jason Stuart)
Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:
You can now see that by the a priori nominalisation or referentialisation the entity which corresponds=20to the word "leaf" it is existentialised for the purposes of making the proposition that it "is green." Hence the role of the "is" can be seen as indicating this modalic information [its greenness] and not that of existentialising the entity which corresponds or is referentialised by the word "leaf," because that has already been accomplished.
don't understand why you're insisting on this distinction; speaking philosophically or not, languages are redundant. The use of any form of "to be" indicates existence as=20much as it indicates any supposed "modality." Just because a word indicates one meaning doesn't mean it can't indicate another.
Jud:
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005