Heidegger

—–Original Message—–
From: john foster
To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Sent: Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:10 pm
Subject: Re: Are corporations people ?
That is partly correct. However, Corporations cannot be tried for ‘crimes’ perpetrated on ‘citizens’, only citizens can be charged and tried for crimes. There is no criminal code in the USA which […]

In a message dated 2/2/2010 2:03:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
janstr at wirehub.nl writes:
Dear All,
I recently heard the US Supreme Court has decided that corporations are
people,
i.a. implying entitlement to First Amendment rights and protection.
I was wondering on what philosophical grounds this decision was
based. At first
thought it seems to me a grotesque fallacy to equate people […]

i can only explain american corporation law in terms of american law. not much of a piece of reasoning. but i have been a practicing
lawyer for 42 years and here is the factual and legal premise. do with it what you will.
the creation of a business corporation has its roots in mercantilism. […]

>>says Allen (I think) very recently:
>>
>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>
>>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of possibility.
>>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, possibility is the very
being
>>of Dasein. As such Dasein’s being is always yet to be accomplished. At
>>the same time, it is already […]

In a message dated 1/23/2010 2:53:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
In a message dated 1/22/2010 2:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
In a message dated 1/21/2010 6:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
>says Allen (I think) very recently:
>
>> Hi Bernard,
>>
>> The crucial matter here is how you take […]

Archetypes are no more, no less than ‘elements’ which taken together represent features of any and all,
in kind or in presentation,
and finally in ‘representation’
this is ’stasis’
and the “One on one”
here and there there is more to being
except physical hunger when it opportunes
the more is what you express
and in some ways diagnose
infinitely
________________________________ From: […]

>In a message dated 1/22/2010 2:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>allen.scult@drake.edu writes:
>
>>In a message dated 1/21/2010 6:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>allen.scult@drake.edu writes:
>>
>> >says Allen (I think) very recently:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>>
>>>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of
>>>>possibility.
>>>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, […]

In a message dated 1/22/2010 2:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
In a message dated 1/21/2010 6:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
>says Allen (I think) very recently:
>
>> Hi Bernard,
>>
>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of
possibility.
>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, possibility […]

>In a message dated 1/21/2010 6:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>allen.scult@drake.edu writes:
>
> >says Allen (I think) very recently:
>>
>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>
>>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of possibility.
>>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, possibility is
>>>the very being
>>of Dasein. As such […]

In a message dated 1/21/2010 6:38:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
allen.scult at drake.edu writes:
>says Allen (I think) very recently:
>
>> Hi Bernard,
>>
>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of
possibility.
>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, possibility is the very
being
>of Dasein. As such Dasein’s being is always […]