unfortunately, as Erminia
>says, this is a very complex matter, though I rather doubt her authority in
>asserting that my or anyone's explanation <can't be> helpful. It helps me
to
>think about it, for example. And I admit that I understand very little.
>Martin
Martin (John),
how can you speak about authority in relation to me , as I am so completely
against authorship? I was saying that Heidegger requires years of studies
to be understood, and that to discuss it here in the way we do does not
help unraveling its complexity. I always suggest to go to the original
texts themselves. They speak clearer than any comments would do (although
commentators believe that they can shed light on obscure matters such as
Heidegger's idea of the being.
It is true that to understand Heidegger's Being and Time one has to read
Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Lot's of concepts are re-discussed there
within the existentialist perspective. But in the case of Sartre's Being
and Nothingness, well, that sort of writing is really an obstacle to
comprehension.
So, one might resort to other works of the same author where he makes these
concepts more visible, such as The Nausea, No Exit and in general all his
Drama.
Erminia (addio for a while)
|