On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:37:37 -0400, Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Oh, I'm no model, Erminia! I've never read the entire thing and what I have
>read has only been in translation. But why shouldn't Mark query you about
>Heidegger now that he's come up and you seem to know his thought well?
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.
>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 - 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)
>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.
>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> that how one conceives of being has implications for how one acts in the
>> 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).