Heidegger

Cologne 31-Jan-2008
Anthony Crifasi schrieb Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:22:36 -0600:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> > ME: For Aristotle, the philosopher sees _to theion_, which is the _aei on_, the “forever
> > being”, which can be the celestial bodies forever circling in their unchanging orbits,
> > but also _to ti aen einai_ or “the what-it-was-ness”, standardly […]

Michael Eldred wrote:
> ME: For Aristotle, the philosopher sees _to theion_, which is the _aei on_, the “forever
> being”, which can be the celestial bodies forever circling in their unchanging orbits,
> but also _to ti aen einai_ or “the what-it-was-ness”, standardly translated into English
> as “essence” or, in other words, the _eidos_, the ’sight’ […]

michaelP wrote:
>The words don’t matter at all with be-ing (”be-ing” is barely a word at
>all since it be-comes a being the minute it is articulated; thus,
>be-ing is covered by the word “be-ing”, which is why Heidegger at one
>time felt compelled to cross it out; I attempt to show that “be-ing” […]

michaelP:
> >But, Joe, who asked as to some “immaterial component of the human
> >individual”? … If you are asking this other question as to the
> >existence of some immaterial component of a human individual: for me
> >that is not the or even a question of be-ing.
>
> >… I fondly […]

michaelP wrote:
>But, Joe, who asked as to some “immaterial component of the human
>individual”? … If you are asking this other question as to the
>existence of some immaterial component of a human individual: for me
>that is not the or even a question of be-ing.
>… I fondly imagine I am trying […]

michaelP wrote:
>jPolanik wrote:
>>you share Michael E’s formulation: ‘x is’ ‘x is a being’.
>Sounds OK, as far as it goes like that.
>>I see nothing wrong with such a premise — as a choice; but, there
>>are other choices; and, consequently, there is a level of awareness
>>logically prior to having […]

Cologne 28-Jan-2008
Anthony Crifasi schrieb Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:28:37 -0600:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >> AC: For Aristotle and Plato, though, the gods are in *no* sense there in
> >> cleaning the latrine or peeling potatoes, or any such productive
> >> activity. Aristotle quite explicitly states that there is only one human
> >> activity that […]

michaelP wrote:
>jPolanik wrote:
>>I doubt that what you mean by ‘be-ing’ is the same as what I mean by
>>either ‘Being’ or ‘being’. either one would refer to the ontological
>>(non-physical, metaphenomenal) reality type. ‘Being’ is just the
>>collective version of ‘being’.
>Remember, be-ing {typographically I am distinguishing it from being {=
>a […]

Yes, and I do not think I am advocating a totalitarian form of discourse
regarding the question of be-ing. But I do think you might take the time to
read Heidegger before/whilst entering into a discussion concerning that very
display par excellence of Heidegger’s distinction, his difference: the
ontological difference (between beings and be-ing). Without […]

> michaelP wrote:
>
> >Joe speaking of Heidegger not asking your question:
>
> >>he does not ask ‘is there Being?
>
> >Joe, it seems to me that your question unasked by Heidegger (but
> >presumably asked by you) is a nonsense question since be-ing is not a
> >being;
>
> I doubt that what you […]