Heidegger

In a message dated 04/05/2008 12:13:23 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) _wrote_ (mailto:GEVANS613@wrote) :

_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/daseinfordummies.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

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.

Jud:
I am of course aware that one of the roles of ‘being’ is that of an ABTRACT
noun.(caps for emphasis only as is my practice) Heidegger recognises *Being*
as a noun in Basic Concepts.

Heidegger:
“It could appear that something important is concealed in what is named by
the noun “being, … ”

Heidegger also seems to consider the abstract noun “the weather” and the
adjective “fine as beings..

Heidegger:
Hence we mean *the being of the being* that is called “weather. ” The “is”
does not thereby name a being, unlike “the weather” and “fine.”

I do not (and I do not say in my text) that Heidegger was hoping to solidify
‘being’ or ‘being there’ into a noun. I quite clearly state that the Dasen
con-trick is an attempt to instantiate the abstract noun ‘being’ ( within a
gerundial wrap) in such a way that it becomes acceptable as a predicate.

Note: The term: *gerundial wrap* does not appear in the text - but its
aptness has just occurred to me.

Quote: The Dasein mechanism is a grammatical and semantic trick to allow
EXISTENCE or BEING to become a predicate. The clavis universalis to an
understanding of existence is an understanding of the *attributive of modality* word
*BE* in its many conjugational guises. (Was, were, is, am, are, being, etc.)
Heidegger attempts to drive in a wedge and distinguish a dichotomy or dualism
between the named ‘ontic’ entity, (which he characterises wrongly as:
“anything that is”) and the sum of its existential modalities that is referenced by
its name.

Joe:
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.

Jud:

They were correct to do so. From Heidegger’s perspective there is little
difference between a being and an entity.

Both can be used to refer to either a living organism or a non-living one.
In English the word being [as a noun] is usually used to refer to living
organisms [a human, an elephant or an ant etc.] In fact the word is not much used
for this purpose much in moder British English. A girl who finds an ant
crawling on her will scream: *Get that thing off me!* Not get that being off me.*
An elephant will be described as a big animal or a big thing. In fact the
word being as a noun saosunds old fashioned and I can never recall it ever being
used in natural languge in all my 73 years apart from in trannie philosophy
and the bible AND of course in relation to *human beings.* We never say an
elephant being or a champanzee being for example.

Joe:
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’.

Jud:

I am unclear what you mean here. The import of *Being* and the meaning it
gives to the term - *being there* is *living there.

In English both phrases are exchangable.

(1) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, being there proved too expensive for him.

(2) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, living there proved too expensive for
him.

Dasein = to exist, to be in existence, to be there (see any German
Dictionary) The English gerundial form *being there* ( which is the existential states
or experiential activities of a person - not the name of some thing is a
trick - which most people cannot even spot. Therefore to talk about dasein and
use it as a noun (dasein thinks this or for dasein x is the case etc) opens
the door to the perfidious *ontological difference. It is the obfucatory factor
of *Being* that is the reason for the continuance of Heideggerian drivel. It
is only a symbol for the Philosopher of Nazism’s perverted idea of God. Use
Word’s Find and Replace and tell it to replace *Being* with *God* and see for
yourself.

Why on earth did he reject all these pronouns and insist on naming his
protagonist not with a form of noun or pronoun but a gerundial construction
‘Das-sein’ (being there) which is the continuous present form of the word which was
his nemesis – ‘BE – IS – Being? What grammatical skullduggery is afoot? Why
when he was dealing with words which he had already admitted in writing that
he didn’t understand, (he never discovered what IS meant and admitted
getting the meanings of being confused) did he go ahead and play around with the
3rd-person continuous tense version of the BE word (being,) even going to the
extent of wrapping it up with the locative ‘there’ word to form a fake ‘noun’
which he called Dasein?

Jud.

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback