Heidegger

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 to employ the term ‘be-ing’ in a
>Heideggerian manner (and thus, to some extent, in a manner not utterly
>unrecognisable by the entire western philosophical tradition)

I think you may be divorcing yourself from and isolating Heidegger from
large portions of the entire western philosophical tradition by claiming
that asking whether there is an immaterial component of the human
individual is not at least part of the question of Being.

not everyone believes in a deity; but, of those who do, how many refer
to a deity as a Supreme Existent rather than a Supreme Being?

not everyone accepts that there is an immaterial component of the human
individual; but, of those who do, how many refer to such things as
existents rather than beings? even by your own terms, if there are such
things they’d have to be beings; for, any that is is a being.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback