Heidegger

Kenneth,

Thank you for your email; it certainly helps me understand you better than
you first response to my first email to this list. Let me ask a question
that hopefully will help me see where you are coming from: what in faith
(either in general or Momonism in particular) inherently demands that I not
be open to the mystery?

Kevin Winters

Furthermore, to say that Christianity is empty of content because it is not
a doctrine is only chicanery. When a believer exists in faith, his existence
has enormous content, but not in the sense of a yield in paragraphs.
Johannes Climacus/Soren Kierkegaard

>From: Kenneth Johnson
>Reply-To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
>To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
>Subject: Re: Passage in “On the Essence of Truth”
>Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:04:17 -0700
>
> >Malcolm/Tympan,
> >
> >Don’t worry about me, I’ve got pretty thick skin. What annoyed me,
>however,
> >was the dabbling in criticisms that are all-too common with no sustained
> >argumentation for them, as if I am supposed to bow down to the wisdom of
> >Nietzsche on this matter. I, for one, think that Ricoeur argued well for
> >faith’s need of atheism: without openness to the possibility of being
>wrong
> >we are incapable of faith. Kenneth and Jud may think that my acceptance
>of
> >faith is a sign of weakness, perhaps of a weak mind trying to find solace
>in
> >something that is outside our experience (to some degree), but I could
>quite
> >easily find their lack of commitment in the fact of uncertainty to be a
>sign
> >of weakness. Yes, there is something to say about being perpetually open,
> >but there is also something to say about committing in the face of that
> >openness (which we all must do).
>
>
>
>Hello Kevin. I hope you’ll accept my apology for the freneticism quotient
>in my flash reaction to the tag line you use at the end of all your posts.
>Maybe you won’t mind if I relate a bit of the personal events in my life
>that might ameliorate your impression of my style and its content regarding
>this - - -
>
>First, I went to your blog site and spent some time there, followed some of
>your reasonings, learned a bit of your commitments to seeking deeper levels
>of truth under the umbrella of a mormon interpretation of the Worlding of
>Ideas and events - -
>
>Or to say, I do know mormon culture, my father met my mother when both were
>serving a three year mission on the arizona/mexico border. Somwhere inside
>all the intervening years of my childhood my father eventually became a
>High Councilman and remained one for the rest of his adult life. He spoke
>often at quarterly conferences and was highly regarded by his peers. When I
>came of age I joined the army and was stationed near where he served his
>mission and enjoyed searching out some of the places he prosylitized at - -
>
>Anyway, I haven’t thought about this stuf for years and do now only because
>of the rememory it stirred when I visited your blog. The thing is, I loved
>my father very much, and he loved me, but we couldn’t really be around each
>other for much of a time because the volume level of our discourse would
>slowly rise to an uncomfortable pitch and neither of us could seem to help
>ourselves find a mutually satisfactory way toward lowering it.
>
>I mean, I had discovered Nietzsche, and the difference in value judgements
>between what interested me and what interested him had grown vastly wider,
>but despite this schizm between us, our arguments always ended in love - -
>
>why I’m writing this I ain’t sure, just a feeling, somewhere along in its
>lines, that it’s probably driven by a desire to lure you away from the
>belief stage of growth and moving up to what, for lack of a better phrase,
>could be called an openness to the mystery, which i think frees us from all
>the claims of all the hundred thousand idea mongers whose sole objective is
>- - - -
>
>anyway, i could ramble on for years - perhaps i embarrass myself, oh well -
>-
>
>
> >Kevin Winters
> >
> >Furthermore, to say that Christianity is empty of content because it is
>not
> >a doctrine is only chicanery. When a believer exists in faith, his
>existence
> >has enormous content, but not in the sense of a yield in paragraphs.
> >Johannes Climacus/Soren Kierkegaard
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@soca.ecu.edu.au
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/heidegger
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Thursday, June 1st, 2006 at 10:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback