Heidegger

That Pete wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>arguably, you (or some other heideggerian) could explain how to
>>deconstruct the Cartesian “I am” without deconstructing daSein’s “I
>>am”.

>Not me. I don’t understand what that means.

let’s take inventory of what you admit understanding and what you deny
understanding.

in BaT, Heidegger wrote, “The considerations which follow will
not have been grounded in full detail until the ‘cogito sum’ has been
phenomenologically destroyed.” [BaT. 123].

do you understand this passage to be an admission that, in the absence
of this ‘phenomenological deconstruction’, _Being and Time_ is not
completely grounded?

do you understand that this phenomenological deconstruction was
scheduled for Part 2, Division 2 of BaT, a section that never appeared?

presumably you understand that this phenomenological deconstruction
could have appeared in some other work; because, you say:

>[Pete]: Arguably, Heidegger does nothing but deconstruct. He invented
>the term to describe his style of hermeneutics.

okay; so, where is the ‘phenomenological deconstruction’ that is
required to fully ground BaT?

presumably, you understand what constitues a ‘phenomenological
deconstruction’ because you say, “it is impossible to understand
deconstruction … without first grasping the ontological difference”.

what gets phenomenologically deconstructed? something to do with
Descartes obviously; but, what — specifically?

do you understand that both daSein and desCartes say “I am”?

do you understand that “I am” is true when said — irregardless of who
says it; or, do you understand that “I am” is true when daSein says it
and false when desCartes says it?

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 Thursday, February 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback