Critique of Mike’s Terminology
September 28th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Critique of Mike’s Terminology :: Critique of Mike’s Terminology :: Critique of Mike’s Terminology :: Critique of Mike’s Terminology
Bernx at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>>we should also adjust Heidegger’s position to make it clear that all
>>humans have the same structure; for example, we’d rule out the claim
>>that some humans are composed of a body, a phenomenological
>>experiencer and a soul while others are composed of body and a
>>phenomenological experiencer only. whatever a human is, all humans are
>>that. this should avoid raising issues concerning Heidegger’s unsavory
>>political affiliations, if any.
>By that measure, Joe, anything “unsavory” (like the holocaust)
>institured by a human would be an issue avoided raising. By this do you
>mean that we all (humans) because we are humans share in the guilt of
>Mr. Hitler & co.? An issue not raised represents a deed of no
>significance. Indeed, an authentic issue raised has consequences,
>Bernard
the task at hand was the difficulty of converting from the first person
perspective (which can exhibit the common ground that Descartes and
Heidegger share) to the third person perspective where it is much more
difficult to exhibit that same common ground.
allegations concerning Heidegger’s involvement with nazis are not
relevant to the task at hand.
what is your response to my claim that the first person perspective
exhibits an area of common ground shared by Descartes and Heidegger?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
