James,
--- James Lomax <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> <<Notice how easy it is for us to utilize the word being
> and to suggest exotic philosophies that exploit the
> expression without having a real sense of what the
> expression means or signifies.>>
>
> Precisely. The same point applies to the term
> consciousness.
> Thought is infinitely malleable; you can cut it and shape
> it in infinite
> ways, however you wish. And if it is elegantly
> constructed and appears to
> address the necessary concepts for any particular
> enquiry, then it is
> adopted and then discussed by everyone else in the
> academic tradition.
Ah. Okay. Good.
>
> However, what I say, think or speculate about 'being'
> makes no difference
> to its fundamental fact. And if I don't adopt this kind
> of stance at the
> very beginning of any enquiry I make, then my
> philosophical enquiry is
> deeply flawed. It is, in fact, a kind of intellectual
> hubris with an
> illusory sense of the significance of intellect.
This claim is pretty hard for me to deal with now at least
in terms of Heidegger. I have only read, and I am still
studying, Being and Time. I have pretty much decided that
Being and Time is basically a prolegomena to a lot of later
work that I suspect will in turn provide some kind of more
complete Heideggarian appraisal of your observation. But
based upon my reading of B/T, I don't think we will want to
say that being is some kind of objective fact that we
comment upon from some separate place. But being is a
certain fact of the matter: Dasein's facticity, his place
in the world. I think the idea is similar to Wittgenstein's
Tractatus observation that facts are all there is.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|