A Being is Not Necessarily an Existent
January 24th, 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 :: About Being Necessary
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
> 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?
do you really think that Heidegger and Plato are asking the same
question concerning the structure of the human individual?
I don’t recall anyone even providing a straight answer let alone an
explanation.
what’s your answer?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
