Heidegger

Jan Straathof wrote:
>When Heidegger announces his “phaenomenologische Destruktion des
>*cogito sum*” [SuZ:89] he had in mind a critical analysis with the aim
>to overcome (surmount) Descartes’ philosophy. Heidegger’s term
>”Destruktion” does not mean annihilation, but getting over, passing
>over to a new understanding of human being. The place of human being in
>Descartes’ […]

In a message dated 13/03/2009 09:57:22 GMT Standard Time, jpolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:
what do you do, Bob, when The Heidegger says ‘three queens’?
Jud:
Think of Wittgenstein, Michel Foucault and Plato perhaps?
Confirmed
Francesco Algarotti Sir Francis Bacon Roland Barthes Simone de Beauvoir
Judith Butler Claudia Card Michel Foucault Plato Alan Turing Ludwig Wittgenstein
Monique Wittig
Debated or […]

Hi Michael,
I agree there is some similarity between Tönnies’ use of concepts of
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft and Heidegger’s Zuhandenheit and
Vorhandenheit. Where Tönnies conceived of any society as always
to some degree both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, i.e. every actual
society is a mix of elements of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, for
Heidegger this principle of co-presence also holds, Dasein’s being-in-
the-world […]

Hi Bob, you wrote:
>I think that there’s a movie going on in your head and you’re the only
>one with tickets.
This is a nice Cartesian observation of Joe’s philosophical condition.
When Heidegger announces his “phaenomenologische Destruktion des
>>cogito sum

There are plenty of very talented folks on this list Joe but you must first
study Heidegger CAREFULLY and COMPLETELY (beginning with SuZ) and then
CAREFULLY and FULLY examine your personal agenda, step back from it once
distinguished AND THEN listen.
But of course I suspect that that’s an almost insurmountable set of hurdles
given your history here (and […]

it’s not a movie. it’s a play, a performance of Beckett’s ‘Waiting for
Heidegger’, an existential drama about a cast of characters waiting for
Heidegger to disclose his case against Descartes.
everyone has a ticket; and, you can write your own lines.
surely, with all the talent on this list, there is someone who can
either present Heidegger’s phenomenological […]

I think that there’s a movie going on in your head and you’re the only one
with tickets.
> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Polanik
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:54 AM
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Subject: Re: The Point of Departure
>
> >>[Joe]: how […]

MichaelP:
> Jan states splendidly (to Joe): […] […]
Indeed.
Jan, thank you for your mails.
They are as much a joy to read as they are educational.
I trust this mail finds you well,
Bob

>>[Joe]: how can we have a fundamental ontology of the human without a
>>description of what there is within the human?
>[Jan]: Who says that there must be something within the human ? Why is
>it not possible to live a meaningful life without a soul ? Why not aim
>your sceptical arrows […]

In a message dated 3/8/2009 8:22:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
janstr at mail.wirehub.nl writes: to Joe;
You have made this argument already a couple of times, namely, that
Heidegger assumes rather than proves. You accuse Heidegger of illicit
assumptions, yet you never critically engage in a discussion, let alone
refutation, of the key concepts of _Sein und Zeit_. All […]