From: henry sholar <hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: god and gramm
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:51:49 -0500



Steve Callihan:
> Becoming is, of course, just another way of saying "coming to be."
> 
> I don't believe that Nietzsche finds fault with the "grammatical habit," as
> such, but only with the super-added rationalizations we might seek to found
> on it. The habit, itself, is organically entertwined with what we have
> become (what we are). It is consonant with our "being," in other words. The
> problem comes, however, when we start to make absolutist claims that are
> grounded in such a habit as forming a kind of immediate certainty (ala
> Descartes, for instance).
> 
> On the other hand, attempts to shake the habit, itself, it seems to me, can
> only be attributed to a kind of asceticism, if not castratism. "If thy eye
> offend thee, pluck it out." Heidegger's philosophy, at least in the forms
> in which it is most commonly propounded, seems to me to be a latter-day
> asceticism.
> 

I don't get the asceticism analogy, w/ or w/out heid. 
tracing the various understandings of beings.  such an enterprise 
neither soildifies the habit in principle(s) nor castrates anybody's
description of the habit.  

could you elucidate on the subject of asceticism and habit-shaking?
thanks,
----------------------
henry sholar
hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---