Heidegger

Ah, Evan’s Eessence is apparently no longer evanescent
> I can understand hopelessly brainwashed nerds like Eldred lapping up the
> crap - he doesn’t know any better with his *Greco-Nursery speak* and now
> runs around claiming that objects *show themselves.* If it wasn’t so
> pathetic waste that the […]

In a message dated 28/10/2007 03:25:39 GMT Standard Time,
allen.scult at DRAKE.EDU writes:
In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:46:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
Georges Metanomski wrote:
> No being _is_ without showing itself _as_
> such-and-such
> =============
> G:
> Some people say that “being” (noun) is an illegal
> and meaningless inflection of the […]

In a message dated 10/27/2007 9:39:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Such intellectual vulgarity can be found in Heidegger further camouflaged
with his baby-language and deliberate obfuscation. It could be found in thugs
like Hitler and Heidegger as the reification of the *Folk* and the
*Master-Race,* it can be found in Christianity as the *God* […]

>In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:46:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>
>Georges Metanomski wrote:
>
>> No being _is_ without showing itself _as_
>> such-and-such
>> =============
>> G:
>> Some people say that “being” (noun) is an illegal
>> and meaningless inflection of the copula “be”.
>>
>> Still, how would an Arab or a Hebrew […]

In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:35:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
janstr at mail.wirehub.nl writes:
It is important to take notice of the terminology here, i.e. the words
real, reality, realism. In the traditional philosophical sense “real” means
that what exists independent of human being. In SuZ Heidegger breaks with this
tradition, because for him (1) there is no existence, i.e. […]

In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:37:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
janstr at mail.wirehub.nl writes:
Hi Bernard, you wrote:
>Being and beings as equiprimordial makes any notion of dasein
>irrelevant. I would expect the “transcendental condition” as apriori
>to the winnowing out of beings (qua Anaximander and imitated by
>Heidegger “into the world”). In any case the notion of a transcendental
>”condition” […]

In a message dated 28/10/2007 01:35:42 GMT Standard Time,
janstr at mail.wirehub.nl writes:
It is important to take notice of the terminology here, i.e. the words
real, reality, realism. In the traditional philosophical sense “real” means
that what exists independent of human being. In SuZ Heidegger breaks
with this tradition, because for him (1) there is […]

Hi Bernard, you wrote:
>Being and beings as equiprimordial makes any notion of dasein
>irrelevant. I would expect the “transcendental condition” as apriori
>to the winnowing out of beings (qua Anaximander and imitated by
>Heidegger “into the world”). In any case the notion of a transcendental
>”condition” makes of the entire proposition an oxymoron insofar as
>only the plurality of […]

Joe, you wrote:
[snip]
>in english, physical objects like stones, chairs, horses and even the
>human body are said to exist; and, thus, the interesting question for
>philosophy is: is there a being within the existing human body? Am I a
>being or just an existing (thing)? and so on.
As i tried to say in my previous post, for […]

In a message dated 10/27/2007 4:26:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Jud:
Purely as information Bernard ad as you are not a member of the list in
question Georges answered thus to Joe.
G:
Hebrew:
“ani hoshev mashmy ani kiim”
Back to English:
“I think means I live/exist”.
Yes, of course, Jud, that is my point. “I live/exist” has more to […]