Heidegger

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 mean by ‘be-ing’ is the same as […]

Well, see, there you go again with that “what” vs “that”. It’s obviously very important to you, but to me it is synonymous with what other philosophers have discussed, not terribly interesting, and it’s not Heidegger’s question. Why it is not, Michael Eldred has explained in considerable detail, and I don’t have anything to […]

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; one can
only ask sensibly ‘is there X’ when X is a being (only beings are […]

That Pete wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>That Pete wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>do you really think that Heidegger and Plato are asking the same
>>>>question concerning the structure of the human individual?
>>>My answer is no.
>>well, then, does it not follow that there is a place where the road
>>forks — a point […]

I think with circa 100 volumes published, Heidegger’s quite capable of describing his own ground. There’s a need for introductions for neophytes, and experts can debate the nuances in Heidegger’s texts, but there’s no need for Pete’s description or interpretation of Heidegger’s ground.
Joseph Polanik wrote: That Pete wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>do you really […]

That Pete wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>do you really think that Heidegger and Plato are asking the same
>>question concerning the structure of the human individual?
>My answer is no.
well, then, does it not follow that there is a place where the road
forks — a point where one path leads to asking the question […]

My answer is no.
But then, here’s a real thinker’s quiz:
 http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2008/01/p…
Joseph Polanik wrote:
That Pete wrote:
>
>
> */Joseph Polanik /* wrote:
>
> as I recall, I’ve already mentioned on more than one occasion that
> Heidegger has reversed the usual meanings of existent and being. by
> itself, that reversal would not be a […]

Cologne 24-Jan-2008
michaelP schrieb Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:40 +0000:
> >> > michaelP schrieb Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:42:32 +0000:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> MP: Thanks for this elucidation. A couple of questions linger: as with
> >> >> Heidegger’s showing of the abyssal gulf between the Greek
> >> >> _aletheia_/_pseudos_ and the Latin […]

That Pete wrote:
>
>
> */Joseph Polanik /* wrote:
>
> as I recall, I’ve already mentioned on more than one occasion that
> Heidegger has reversed the usual meanings of existent and being. by
> itself, that reversal would not be a problem; after all, not everyone
> […]

> Cologne 21-Jan-2008
>
> michaelP schrieb Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:31:45 +0000:
>
>> > michaelP schrieb Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:42:32 +0000:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> MP: Thanks for this elucidation. A couple of questions linger: as with
>> >> Heidegger’s showing of the abyssal gulf between the Greek
>> >> _aletheia_/_pseudos_ and the Latin _veritas_/_falsum_ (please excuse the
>> […]