Heidegger

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>

Jud,

your page considers the possible impact on his philosophy of the
grammatical technicalities of Heidegger’s language; but, I think you are
incorrectly suggesting that Heidegger was hoping to solidify ‘being’ or
‘being there’ into a noun.

it’s already a noun.

1. have you considered the possibility that the non-noun uses of ‘being’
(gerund, continuous present) are given inappropriate emphasis because of
translation conventions that may be misleading. specifically, I am
referring to the decision by McQuarrie and Robinson to translate
‘Siendes’ as ‘entity’ or ‘entities’ rather than as ‘being’ or ‘beings’.
these are all nouns. my point is that if the noun uses are obscured
by the translators, only the verb-based uses appear.

2. as a noun it is appropriately combined with a locative. the problem
is that Heidegger (and/or translators) chose the wrong one. if you
recall that Heidegger claimed that Dasein should always refer to itself
in the first person (’I am’), it should be clear that the correct
locative is ‘here’ not ‘there’.

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, May 11th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback