Wednesday, November 29, 2006
According to Richard Capobianco, enowning is not all that special.
[Heidegger] was clear and emphatic right to the end of his life that the single, defining concern of his path of thinking was about the originary, fundamental, unifying meaning of Being, named by him over the many years Beyng (das Seyn), Being itself (das Sein selbst), Being as such (das Sein als solches), and Being as Being (das Sein als Sein). Certainly, there is no denying the importance of the notion of Ereignis in his thought, but its significance has been overworked and overstated by several Heidegger scholars in recent years. In other words, I think that if we examine Heidegger’s words carefully, we find that he understood Ereignis to be (only) another name for Being itself.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version