Heidegger

Cologne 25-Mar-2008

Joseph Polanik schrieb Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:23:09 -0500:

> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik schrieb Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:16:43 -0500:
>
> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:48:55 -0500:
>
> >>>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>>JP: ontology is defined as the study of what there is; for example,
> >>>>in this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
>
> >>>>”As a first approximation, ontology is the study of what there is.”
>
> >>>ME: Rather, one would have to say, “As a last degeneration, ontology
> >>>is the study of what there is.”
>
> >>>ME: These guys at Stanford should limit themselves to eating cookies.
>
> >>JP: it’s not just those guys at Stanford. here’s a definition from the
> >>online Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names:
>
> >>Ontology - Branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the
> >>most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist.
>
> >ME: Bake more cookies — quick, and stuff their mouths full with them.
>
> JP: you are going to have to bake your own cookies.
>
> >>do you have any references to any philosopher other than Heidegger who
> >>attempted to make ontology a question of who there is instead of what
> >>there is?
>
> >ME: I’ve already named several names. Further names include Martin
> >Buber, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Ferdinand Ebner, Eberhard Grisebach,
> >Karl Heim, Gabriel Marcel, Friedrich Gogarten, Helmut Plessner, Adolf
> >Reinach, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Wilhelm Schapp, Alfred Schütz, Ludwig
> >Binswanger, Hermann Levin Goldschmidt. Cf. the table of contents of
> >Michael Theunissen’s “Der Andere: Studien zur Sozialontologie der
> >Gegenwart” de Gruyter, Berlin 1977
>
> >>>ME: The term ‘ontology’ goes back to R. Goeckel (Goclenius) around
> >>>1600 who, in his ‘Lexicon philosophicum’, introduces _epistaemae
> >>>ontologikae_ as term for one of the three Aristotelean _epistaemai
> >>>theooretikai_. Ontology thus names Aristotle’s prima philosophia as
> >>>the inquiry into _to on haei on_ which phrase can be variously
> >>>rendered in English as “beings insofar as they are beings” or “
> >>>”beings as such” or “beings qua beings” or “beings as beings” or
> >>>”beings in their being”. Unfortunately, today we have become too dumb
> >>>to understand the import of such a well-thought-out formulation which
> >>>is, in any case, the most open definition of ontology.
>
> >>JP: so, what is it about “the most open definition of ontology” that
> >>limits an ontology to those beings that have a who-ness about them?
>
> >ME: Nobody here’s suggesting that ontology be limited “to those beings
> >that have a who-ness about them”.
>
> JP: what about all those names you just mentioned as examples of a
> “philosopher other than Heidegger who attempted to make ontology a
> question of who there is instead of what there is”? I sense a
> contradiction here.

ME: Here you go, trying to lay one of your sophistic traps again. And the
little trap in this case is to interpret your “instead” exclusively (cf. the
trick with the exclusive or inclusive “or”).

>
> JP: and why are you still objecting to the definition of ontology as the
> study of what there is?

ME: See my very detailed and clear response to your last question in my post
dated Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:01:28 +0100

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback