Heidegger

Tudor Georgescu wrote:

>>—–Original Message—–
>>From: Joseph Polanik
>>Sent: maandag 2 februari 2009 13:15
>>To: heidegger at an-archos.com
>>Subject: Axis of Error: AIT and Heideggerianism Share a Place

>A nice analysis of how AIT-ism is an acerb form of Heideggerianism.
>(Heidegger was not an opponent of materialism or mattergism, but he was
>indifferent to them).

>However, there is a difference between “I am” and “it is”. “It is”
>means that a thing/being is not nothing. But, a thing cannot say “I
>am”. “I am” is a statement which only an aware being is able to utter,
>since only aware beings are aware of their own being something else
>than nothing. As such, “I am” does not only denote that one is
>something else than nothing, but it also denotes that one is an aware
>being. Heidegger calls aware beings by the word Dasein. He defines the
>being of the Dasein in residing alongside with and being familiar with,
>i.e. he states the property of awareness, that of taking part to its
>own environment, of imparting in its environment.

>As such, “I am” is a shortcut notation for “I am an aware being”=”I am
>a Dasein”=”I am not a thing”.

‘I am not nothing at all’ is the minimum that *must* be true of anyone
that can assert ‘I am’. some philosophers will want to go further and
define what the I *is*. unfortunately, there is no consensus as to what
the I *is* — only that it is not nothing.

Heidegger defines the human as a dasein; someone else defines the human
as a talkative ape; and, someone else has some other definition.

everbody has an opinion; but, you’d expect philosophers to want to know
which description or definition is the correct one.

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 Sunday, February 8th, 2009 at 7:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback