Heidegger

In a message dated 15/01/2010 19:33:57 GMT Standard Time,
mitdasein42 at gmail.com writes:

I’m working on a thesis that the nominal subject is a misinterpretation,
that
the subject exists as a ‘count as one’ that occurs in the face of a
situation.
It also defines the time period of a ‘moment’, which is the length of time
that
that particular configuration continues.

cheers
Andrew
Andrew,

As you obviously know, the term *nominal subject* is a word or group of
words functioning as a noun in a sentence. It is simply a grammatical
significatum which either points to, indicates, or otherwise stands in place
of a nominatum (that which is named (nominated) and concretely exists (or
existed in the past.) Something whether existing or not that is referred to
by a sentential linguistic expression is known as a designatum.

I am curious to know the following.

(1) How does your thesis deal with multiple singletons in expressions
like:

*Prince Harry, Prince William and their inebriated butler travelled in the
leading vehicle.*

(2) Subjects in sentences such as: *The barking dog* in the absence of
any situational context?

(3) How you deal with a gerundial reification like Being which is sometimes
used as nominal subject yet is often attributed to more than one
individual?

(4) How would Heidegger’s Being be treated as a nominal subject in the
face of a situation - when Being is said by some to BE *the existential
situation?*

(5) As *moments* are no more than *useful fictions* and *time* has no
interstices, how can a name *define* a *moment?
The role of temporal indication is usually performed by BE in one of its
conjugations including the being of the continuous present.

Cheers,

Jud

Posted on Sunday, January 17th, 2010 at 7:02 am
rss 2.0 | trackback