> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:37:37 -0400, Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
Erminia:

> Because he is quesrying Heidegger, not me. So he bettrer go and read again
> Heidegger himself. Why query me? You know already my answers. It is
> Heideggere that you need to unravel, if you wish to do so....Mark querying
> me? I see no point.

LOL! Who would you have to converse with on this discussion list, Bela, if
we all Marked your words?!


>> When you counter Mark's "altruism" with Heidegger's nihilism,
>
> (did you mean Marx? or did you really meant "our" Mark - the one on line
> here and now -

Yes, this was Mark's term, an extension of his question about Heidegger and
the social self re Being. (We could bring Marx to bear on the social[ized]
Laboring self, but did Heidegger have time for Marxian being? I don't think
so.)


 in that case, I find the association between the figure of
> Mark nd the figure of Heidegger quiete hazarduous...Yet, I compliment you
> for the daring move...... (Jocking)

"I Know you Rider"!

Candice


> .... you've
>> certainly got a point (he was a Nazi too), but I think it's also important
>> to remember how affected his philosophical legacy was by the peculiar turn
>> it took in Hannah Arendt, at least partly as a consequence of her feelings
>> for him. Something pretty close to altruism became integrated to the
>> phenomenology later developed by such figures as Merleau-Ponty and even, to
>> some extent, the saintly Levinas.
>>
>> Candice
>>
>>
>> Erminia:
>>
>>> Also, of you want to know what he thinks about the being before we talk
>>> about heideggerian perpective, you should toa nd read Being and Time, as
>>> Candice is doing.
>>
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>>>> I didn't say that I don't understand him at all. Let's say that I don't
>>>> think one can abstract being from the matrix in which beings exist--that
>>>> being is only in dialogue--as language is only in dialogue, whether the
>>>> speakers are internal or external. That it's a matter of negotiation.
> And
>>>> that how one conceives of being has implications for how one acts in the
>>>> world.
>>
>> Erminia:
>>
>>> Then you should read Sartre....(and be a Communist as he was). It is
>>> Marxistic critique of society that enphaissed the importance of people in
>>> their own time. Youa re then talking not about the being (*the Self, as
>>> intended in abstact, absolute trems, as in Helegel or Heidegger), but you
>>> are talking about identities at work. This is the point. Do identities
>>> represent beings? The Pirandellian quest?
>>>
>>> For matters concerning identities, you shall read Time and Free Will by
>>> Bergson ,  who wrote extensively on the difference between the subjective
>>> and objective perception of time (history), memory and matters of these
>>> kind  and who , unlike Heidegger and Hegel, is very readable, his style
>>> being locic and argumentative (explainatory, even).