Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: decker150: Help with Heidegger

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Thanks Barger. I guess that I would like philosophical terms to have an explicit meaning concisely expressed within a single simple scentence. For example, I
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 4 6:28 PM
      Thanks Barger.

      I guess that I would like philosophical terms to have an explicit
      meaning concisely expressed within a single simple scentence. For
      example, I find that the term 'ontic' has a simple meaning, 'the way
      things are.'

      But often times, the elaborate definitions are conmstructed with more
      equally ambiguous terms. When it is stated that "pre-ontological--
      "ontic" refers to knowing real or actual objects", that seems to be
      consistent with my understand of the 'ontic' as 'the way things are';
      combined into a blended expression, we might get'the way real objects
      or actual objects are'. But the knowing part is not well explained.
      Knowing? It was sense of the word? Knowing it rationally or
      experiencially? In a tacit manner or in an expressed manner? These
      are the kind of questions I find myself always stuck with. And
      here's another: Is the 'pre-ontological' the same 'as' the ontic or
      merely a qualifier or description of it. I understand the
      ontological as 'the structure of being'. So, is the pre-ontological
      the state of situation or 'what-is' before the structure. What
      is 'pre' about it as opposed to strictly a full blown ontological?
      The ontos and the logos suggest an systematic (study) rationale about
      the structure; something like theology or philology are 'studies'. I
      imagine that the pre-ontological suggest something before this
      systematic rationale or before the studying begins; almost on the
      parallel with pre-reflective consciousness.

      Regarding the statement: "Knowing that gathers beings together in
      terms of what makes them to be such in their Being is "ontological";
      When this ontological Knowing is posssessed but not adverted to, it
      is called pre-ontological. Awareness in the condition of natural
      knowing is simultaneously ontic and pre-ontological."

      My thoughts: How can 'knowing' gather anything, especially, how does
      it gather 'beings together'? I can gather my thoughts together. I
      can gather my perceptions together into a reflection of some specific
      being or beings, but the idea of gathering 'beings'. Is it an
      abstraction called being without any specific embodiment that I
      gather? Is it the gathering of the imagination about being, of a
      concept, or a formal meaning? And what is this 'awareness in the
      condition of natural knowing'. What is 'natural knowing? Is it the
      same as pure sensation of things without the aid or function of the
      thinking and rational processes?

      I would like to hear more sound minded thinking on the subjects that
      break away from the presuptuous and ambiguous terminology, to bring
      more direct and clear meaning to a discussion.

      Joe



      --- In Sartre@y..., barger@j... wrote:
      > William J. Richardson, S.J., in
      > "Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to
      > Thought" (1967) offers these
      > explanations:
      >
      > pre-ontological--"ontic" refers to
      > knowing real or actual objects; Knowing
      > that gathers beings together in terms of
      > what makes them to be such in their
      > Being is "ontological"; When this
      > ontological Knowing is posssessed but
      > not adverted to, it is called
      > pre-ontological. Awareness in the
      > condition of natural knowing is
      > simultaneously ontic and pre-ontological.
      >
      > "Let the analysis of finite
      > transcendence, then, start with
      > There-being in that condition where it
      > is most victim to its finitude:
      > thrown-down among beings and immersed in
      > them, There-being's unique prerogative
      > lies lost in forgotten-ness. This is
      > its every-day condition. Let it be
      > called "every-day-ness."..."It is
      > consummate ordinariness." (p. 48)
      >
      > The starting point is where "the
      > everydayness of There-being (is) lost
      > in a forgotten-ness of its self."...
      > ..."(I)t has forgotten the very
      > prerogative that constitutes its
      > uniqueness; it has "fallen from," "taken
      > flight from" its authentic self, it is
      > lost in inauthenticity." (p. 70)
      >
      > "...Being is temporal, for it is sheer
      > Presence. The temporality of Being is
      > implicit, as well, when (Heidegger)
      > insists that the horizon of
      > objectiveness, because finite, includes
      > time as an essential component. It may
      > be inferred, too, from the analysis of
      > the transcendental imaginatiion as
      > original time, whether we take the
      > imagination as the root of time or time
      > as the root of the transcendental
      > imagination." (p. 148-149) (Richardson
      > here is explaining the connection
      > between Heidegger's thought
      > and Kant's notion that the mind
      > organizes experience in time and space).
      >
      > "Since There-being is ultimately a
      > temporal being, it is essentially
      > historical as well. The analysis of the
      > historicity of There-being, then, is no
      > more than an explicitation and further
      > elaboration of what is already implied
      > lin the study of temporality." (p. 90)
      >
      > Richardson's work is the most
      > comprehensive study of Heidegger I know
      > of, and the index of his book refers to
      > all of Heidegger's technical expressions
      > with appropriate page references.
      > However, he is sometimes almost as
      > obscure as Heidegger and the book (which
      > covers all phases of Heidegger's work to
      > the end) is 764 pages including the
      > index. However, if
      > you really want to get into Heidegger's
      > though, I know of no better source. Of
      > course, Richardson is a Jesuit but they
      > have been perhaps the leading scholars
      > in the field of phenomenology.
      >
      > Bill Barger
      >
      > Bill Barger--Manhattan Beach.
      > _________________________________________________
      > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
      > http://www.FindLaw.com
      > Get your FREE @... email!
      > http://mail.Justice.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.