Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
May 25th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Crifasi
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:55 PM
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Subject: Re: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
>
> Bob Guevara wrote:
>
> >> —–Original Message—–
> >> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
> >>archos.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Crifasi
> >> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 11:14 AM
> >> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> >> Subject: Re: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
> >>
> >> Evasive answering isn’t the most adolescent attribute for an
> >> intellectual. That prize goes to not answering at all. So he’s
> >> preferable to some here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well Anthony, I guess some would think that getting a filling is
> preferable
> > to getting a root canal. Not that your weeks old back-and-forth is
> audible
> > necessarily (can always filter) but it does agitate the space in a
> sense …
> > no?
> >
> > Not a problem Anthony with one rather clichéd caveat:
> >
> > —-The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
> again
> > and expecting a different outcome.
>
> ouch. Well, not expecting a different outcome, then … just pointing
> out what needs to be pointed out. Besides, every parent knows that it
> takes years (decades?)
>
> On a side note, I’ve always noted the higher percentage of philosophers
> who are childless (and even un-hitched, divorced, and just plain
> unmarried) compared to the general population. I don’t have any stats -
> just two eyes plus years of time around them. I wonder if that’s a
> symptom of precisely the fact that marriage and parenthood are the
> opposite of philosophy, *including* the Heideggerian brand? I.E.,
> immersion in everydayness (and being damn happy about it) when
> philosophy demands the opposite? And if so, then can we do a reversal
> (like Heidegger’s on Husserl, only this time on Heidegger’s brand) and
> say instead that the heart has reasons that Dasein can’t
> phenomenologically unfold? (at least, not as Dasein)
>
> After that, it’s only a short step to findin’ religion. Which is
> probably a second reason why most philosophers are childless,
> un-hitched, divorced, and just plain unmarried. Nietzsche wasn’t wrong
> in connecting the two.
Interesting Anthony.
First of all, I didn’t mean to elicit an “ouch”. It’s just pretty clear that
Polanik’s agenda sits over his face at an altitude of mere millimeters so to
speak with no indication of any lifting.
I’ve noted in past conversations my view of philosophy in general and
Heidegger in particular viz. even though philosophy can’t be used as a tool,
it can use us. I’ve been taken to task by you, Rene, Allen (et. al.) for
thinking that fundamental ontology can impact the ontic, that is the quality
of my life as I live it. That is: just realizing that *the ability to think
of ourselves as minds located in physical bodies — a highly specialized
self-interpretation rooted in detached theorizing, an interpretation lacking
any broader implications for understanding human existence* as Guignon
writes impacts my marriage, my daughter and my life in the sense that my
beliefs aren’t so solid anymore. Those that stand in the way of living a
life I love aren’t so impenetrable and significant nor are the prejudges and
biases that they express …
Thanks again my friend …
Bob
