A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent
January 23rd, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent :: A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent :: A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent :: A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent
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
chooses the same root predicate. Heidegger’s absurdity comes from
dwelling on the category that we share with chairs, toe fungus and
reptiles rather than on the category that is characteristically human
— irregardless of what those categories are called.
Isn’t it even more absurd to expound on Heidegger on a Heidegger mailing list, never having bothered to read Heidegger? And even worse, when others have taken the time to explain, to just incessantly repeat your infelicities?
———————————
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
