Heidegger

my yearly appearance:
since i’m a practicing sophist (trial lawyer), i recognize a good courtroom smear; an ad hominem
argument, second class. heidegger’s personal weakness, political stupidity, simple ambition, self-
imposed blindness to brutality,
or any other set of flaws makes him automatically wrong about everything?
is he also wrong about the proposition that 2 plus 2 equals […]

The disturbing thing is how they try to elevate Nazism to the status of a philosophy:
Romano: “Faye counters that his philosophy grew out of his Nazism, forcing us to see it as a kind of philosophical propaganda for Nazism in a different key”
So, with this article, the situation shifts from the traditional one […]

I’ve seen some pretty strange things in the Chronicle of Higher
Education, but this is one of the most offensively ignorant pieces
I’ve read on anything, anywhere. Apparently, the author is actually
philosophy professor. I can understand not having Heideggerian
philosophy in one’s area of specialization, but then at least don’t
attempt to write about him.
================================
 http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heideg…
October 18, 2009
Heil Heidegger!
By […]

In a message dated 05/08/2009 10:40:53 GMT Standard Time,
_jpolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jpolanik@nc.rr.com) writes: _gevans613 at aol.com_
(mailto:gevans613@aol.com) wrote:
jPolanik wrote:
Jud: Because a neurologically traumatised person is the only paradigm of
the human condition which could possibly provide the model for the
existential state of self-referential ignorance and identity-unawareness that the
imaginary protagonist in the Cartesian […]

gevans613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik wrote:
>Jud: Because a neurologically traumatised person is the only paradigm
>of the human condition which could possibly provide the model for the
>existential state of self-referential ignorance and
>identity-unawareness that the imaginary protagonist in the Cartesian
>philosophical parlour-game could portray.
>Joe: if the ramblings of a neurologically traumatized […]

In a message dated 03/08/2009 11:11:50 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes: _gevans613 at aol.com_
(mailto:gevans613@aol.com) wrote:
jPolanik writes:
snip
Jud: (earlier]
My whole logomachy revolves around the necessity of grasping one’s
biographical antecedency in order that the pronoun *I* may even be lexically
retrieved and uttered.
Joe:
are you saying that there has *never* been a case of amnesia […]

gevans613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik writes:
>snip
>Jud: My whole logomachy revolves around the necessity of grasping
>one’s biographical antecedency in order that the pronoun *I* may even
>be lexically retrieved and uttered.
>Joe: are you saying that there has *never* been a case of amnesia or
>brain injury in which the subject forgot […]

02/08/2009 _jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:
snip
Jud [earlier]
My whole logomachy revolves around the necessity of grasping one’s
biographical antecedency in order that the pronoun *I* may even be lexically
retrieved and uttered.
Joe:
this sounds like an empirical claim. are you saying that there has *never*
been a case of amnesia […]

gevans613 at aol.com wrote:
>>gevans613@aol.com wrote:
>>>Descartes discounted, or was obviously ignorant of the nature of the
>>>reflexive role of the pronominal discourse referent *I.* Its function
>>>is that of self-referential specificity (the quality of
>>>particularising one’s own self - rather than generalising the
>>>*other.*) From the perspective of a participant in an act […]

You need to define, or provide a glossary for the numerous neologisms, Jud…..the comment you provide is not comprehensible in the extreme, since there is a reliance on neologisms and technical terms that most of us have no idea what they mean. We have no idea what you are suggesting,
John
________________________________ From: Joseph […]