Sunday, September 10, 2006
In-der-Blog-sein
Mormon Philosophy & Theology on the two Anwesenlassen in Zur Sache des Denkens. The "letting-presence" of things to thinking, and thinking of "letting-presence" itself, in terms of Ereignis, without letting it become just another thing. Tricky that. Especially with the danger of deferring meaning into an infinite recursion. ¶ 10:11 AM
Mormon Philosophy & Theology on the two Anwesenlassen in Zur Sache des Denkens. The "letting-presence" of things to thinking, and thinking of "letting-presence" itself, in terms of Ereignis, without letting it become just another thing. Tricky that. Especially with the danger of deferring meaning into an infinite recursion. ¶ 10:11 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Well, you have to remember that there was a distinction of earth, air, fire, water, and aether(where the demons were) during Porphyry's time.
You might want to confuse yourself by another 20%.
You might want to confuse yourself by another 20%.
I can accept the ontological difference likely, and Ereignis is a useful explanation, but I'm skeptical about the four-fold. Why four? It might be a useful tool for thinking through some of the issues, but is it ontology? When I read that stuff, it reminds me of a Slapp Happy song:
"He used to wear fedoras,
but now he sports a Fez.
There's cabalistic innuendo
in everything he says."
"He used to wear fedoras,
but now he sports a Fez.
There's cabalistic innuendo
in everything he says."
I think that's a good point (about whether it is ontology). I think issues of ontology might more properly belong to the phase of phenomenological thinking whereas the fourfold is more properly about thinking proper. That is thinking as something wider and more fundamental than phenomenology. So perhaps the fourfold is the attempt by Heidegger to move from the ontological difference in phenomenology to an equivalent different in thinking.
But I'm glad I'm not alone in finding it confusing. (Especially the shifts. i.e. from world to sky)
Mauberly, I also immediately thought of the four elements of the Greeks. I think the later form of the fourfold which is earth, sky, mortals, gods points more in that way. Especially when one remembers that to the Stoics fire was the divine. I'm not sure about water/mortal though and the notion of mortal is pretty key for Heidegger's taxonomy. The parallels to Aristotle's fourfold taxonomy of causes seems much more relevant. (IMO)
Post a Comment
But I'm glad I'm not alone in finding it confusing. (Especially the shifts. i.e. from world to sky)
Mauberly, I also immediately thought of the four elements of the Greeks. I think the later form of the fourfold which is earth, sky, mortals, gods points more in that way. Especially when one remembers that to the Stoics fire was the divine. I'm not sure about water/mortal though and the notion of mortal is pretty key for Heidegger's taxonomy. The parallels to Aristotle's fourfold taxonomy of causes seems much more relevant. (IMO)
<< Home
