Heidegger

In a message dated 9/28/2006 7:41:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
So leaving the plonker Plato aside, how does this modern misunderstanding
arise? I suggest here that it is because people confuse the apparently obvious
phenomenological EXISTENCE of the abstraction ‘pain,’ with ‘that which ACTUALLY
EXISTS and deterministically causes THE TRAUMA - [the nail or the cancer] and
*that which deterministically UNDERGOES the tissue change known as *trauma.*
[the big toe or the liver tissue.]
BERNARD:
Accordingly, the nail, karkinos and Plato must be punished for their
transgressions and impounded wherever guilty objects are confined.

Jud:
Homocentric attribution of guilt does not make ontological sense when we
address insensate objects like a rusty nail.
Then, Jud, how is it possible to say: “….deterministically causes THE
TRAUMA - [the nail or the cancer] and *that which deterministically UNDERGOES the
tissue change known as *trauma.* [the big toe or the liver tissue.].” I can
understand the deterministic possibility of cancer but of a nail??? That reminds
me of the onto-folkish days when a weapon was punished for inflicting a wound
rather than the wielder of the weapon.
Bernard

(bxbovasso)

Posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback