An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being
March 15th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being :: An Unprejudiced Inquiry into The Question of Being
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>would you not agree that what separates philosophy from ideology is
>>just this principle: that the structure of a human, whatever that
>>structure is, is the same for all humans?
>Not the structure of “a human,” but rather the structure of “human
>being.” The difference is that the former is an individual, while the
>latter is a much more philosophically flexible way of putting it. I am
>”a human.” But “human being” is less limiting.
using the phrase ‘human being’ prejudices the inquiry into the question
of being. compare the following two questions:
[1]: is there Being or a being within a human?
[2]: is there Being or a being with a human being?
question [2] is prejudicial because the form of the question suggests
the answer. in fact, [2] bears a striking resemblance to the question
‘when did you stopped beating your wife?’ posed by a prosecutor. the
question *assumes* the defendant had been beating his wife over a period
of time. this question is highly prejudicial if asked before the
allegation of wife beating is proven.
similarly, to pursue the question of being in an unprejudiced manner we
have to ask [1] rather than [2].
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
