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