Heidegger

> No matter how many times one protests that on the contrary, the texts
> have been read and re-read closely - even hermeneutically with the aid
> of a yod, and that one perfectly understands his theories and notions
> but reject them as patently puerile, they still act as if you were the
> dope instead of them. We can further add, but it makes no difference,
> that we reject as laughable his outrageous and risible employment of
> the grammatical gerundial mechanism’Dasein’,

Heidegger agrees with you:

“With regard to the awkwardness and ‘inelegance’ of expression in the analyses to come, we may remark that it is one thing to give a report in which to tell about _entities_, but another to grasp entities in their _Being_. For the latter task we lack not only most of the words but, above all, the ‘grammar’.” (Being and Time, H.39-40)

> or do not recognise the
> so-called ‘ontological difference’ other than as a BASIC ERROR of
> thinking in any ‘thinkers thinking.’

Heidegger agrees again with you, see Being and Time (H.4-5). So, you are not being original, you only take over objections that Heidegger himself made to discussing about Being, and you tell them as if they were your own objections.

Besides, you yourself said that if one replaces the word “Being” by the words “pantheist God”, then Being and Time makes perfect sense.

This is a brilliant remark. All those who take ontological difference literally, i.e. they deny that the “is” is in the beings, they are simply misunderstanding Being and Time.

Someone (an otherwise intelligent fellow) refuted pantheism like: if God is everywhere, then my wristwatch is God. So people refute ontological participationism like: if Being is everywhere, then a being is Being. No, silly, the wristwatch is just a tiny part of God. A being is just a tiny part of Being. And beings are, therefore Being is in the beings. The “is” is in the beings because they are.

Greetings,

Tudor

Posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2008 at 3:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback