I have, and even if I were to agree with you that Heidegger is being negatively judgmental in some way in his analysis, it's hardly the "heart of the ...
Notice he doesn't once say that Western metaphysics is "wrong." The question has been forgotten and concealed, and the "orignary" way the early Greeks...
And without context, just that -- words. As I mentioned, from my reading these statements are almost always made in reference to translations of words...
It's not a question. "Falsity" in the sense of being concealed, covering-over, and forgetting. "Applied to"...mainly in the context of how words are t...
Exactly. Philosophers of the last 2,500 are right within the scope of "presencing." Then you go on to make a lot of assertions... No. The question has...
"Hermeneutical relativism" is a redundancy. We're talking about interpretation. Interpretation presupposes a point of view, of course. So a kind of "r...
But you've given no indication here that you've read one word of Heidegger. If you're in the "ignore the man because he was a Nazi" group -- that's fi...
Because it'd be like saying that if one states "the glass is half empty," it's "wrong." It's not wrong -- it's just as true as the opposite. There are...
Exactly. It's not that Hegel, or Kant, or Descartes, or Augustine, or Greeks (presocratic or not) were wrong. Likewise, science isn't "wrong" either -...
Right, that's partly my fault, I completely forgot. But that's all different from saying they're "right," remember. He does indeed think their thinkin...
Fair enough. Because he argues it's the Greek way of interpreting Being (I'm using capitalization now simply for clarity) that determines all other in...
He's not interpreting being, no. As far as improving upon or invalidating other interpretations -- I think he contributes a great deal to understandin...
If we want to equate "pre-ontological understanding of being" to "knowledge" or "intuition," that's very misleading -- in Heidegger's context. Which h...
Well beings reveal themselves, anyway. Buddhists certainly "believe" that there are beings (or phenomena). Online or at your library. Some are PDF, bu...
I myself see a number of parallels to Buddhism and Daoism in Heidegger. But when you say he thinkers Being is "real," I'm not sure what you mean. He h...
Yes, with reasoning and evidence which is quite convincing, at least to me. The presence of whatever is before us, whether numbers or trees. Whatever ...
Sure -- but it wasn't "science" or "logic" in the sense that was meant above. Hunter-gathers weren't conducting controlled experiments, nor were they ...
Who's claiming that one must have a "knowledge of its meaning independent of the particular trees"? Or to translate: Where does Heidegger say we have ...
I think those who are voting "logic" are equating logic with thought. I don't see them as synonyms, however, any more than the rules of grammar is syn...
But what your describing sounds more like thinking generally, not necessarily the subject of the rules of thought as propositions, etc., which is what...
I put "other," for ontology. Metaphysics is fine too. Asking about what "is," about being and beings, is first philosophy. It's why it begins when Wes...
Fine -- one reference on where "logos" isn't also "gathering," etc. I've read nothing of the kind. The fact that he's unconventional is well establish...
I'm not a "fan" of his per se, but I have read him and have concluded that he's accurate and deep. But taking myself out of the equation: don't you th...
That captures it very succinctly. I'm in total agreement, and I think most people are -- both on this Forum and in the country. Polling reflects this,...
Well you have to know what I'm saying before you can state whether they agree or disagree. And so far it's not clear that you do. The two mentioned ab...
No, which is why I said "no offense meant." But then I go on to mention why: you claim his translations are capricious (which you're clearly not yet i...
Why do you keep referring to "the Being"? Where does the "the" come in? Please give one example where he even implies Christian theology "perverts" th...
Same thing applies. I was using your word because that's the example you chose. One shouldn't be attached to family and friends either. One shouldn't ...
No, he's not. At this point, I'll have to ask you for any textual evidence of this. From what you've given so far, you've misunderstood. See my previo...
Yes, that's certainly why. But people will mistake the capitalization in the sense of "God," a supreme Being of some kind -- and that's not what's mea...
You're equating happiness with pleasure -- it's not the same thing, neither in Buddhism nor in Aristotle. No. Stop craving, and becoming attached with...
Disqualify from what? It's not meant to be derogatory, which he says many, many times. In fact he sees it as necessary given philosophy's inception. H...
Not once does he disqualify anyone for "not understanding what the Being is," in that quotation or anywhere else. Why? It should be obvious in what wa...
This is very well said. I wrote something similar just before reading this -- which goes to show Heidegger isn't completely unclear, after all -- even...
I agree with everything except "always abhorred the Jews." Husserl and Arendt with both Jews, as you know. Maybe there's some private letters I've mis...
No, that's simply wrong. I don't know exactly why you accuse me of being a "believer" -- but that's nothing but a term of abuse. What you stated origi...
I'm neither -- just as I'm neither about ectoplasm. Until someone explains what it is, I can't be for it, against it, or agnostic about it. Fair enoug...
Great quote -- also leveled at Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, etc. etc. Not to mention Nietzsche himself -- among other accusations. No need to take this, or s...
An explanation about the problem? I'm not sure what that means. If you mean that he later recognized that he was unable to "reawaken" and "question" t...
Comments