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

a faltering attempt

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Let me try to get into the most difficult of philosophical waters, without disappearing beneath the waves. I want to elucidate Heidegger s distinction between
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Let me try to get into the most difficult of philosophical waters,
      without disappearing beneath the waves. I want to elucidate
      Heidegger's distinction between the ontical and the ontological, which
      is, in my view, intimately related to Nikolai Hartmann's ontological
      category hierarchy, with the aim of explaining the precise nature of
      my distrust of the concept, choice, especially in its final,
      political, consequences. It may be advisable to take this in stages.
      Taking a deep breath, I post this first.

      Louise
    • louise
      So: the logos in greek language is the word by which inward thought is expressed, or the inward thought/reason, itself. ontos is a genitive [possessive] form
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        So: the logos in greek language is the word by which inward thought is
        expressed, or the inward thought/reason, itself. ontos is a genitive
        [possessive] form of the participle, oon [i.e. with a long 'o', or
        omega vowel, whereas ontos is a short, omicron, vowel], from the verb
        eimi, to be. This gives the signification of ontology as 'the inward
        thought of being'. Ontical is an adjectival form of that participle,
        i.e. 'pertaining to being'.

        Concrete examples [insofar as we can pretend to be concrete when
        simply typing words from a keyboard]:
        soophia, cleverness, wisdom in common things, perfect scientific
        knowledge, belongs in the ontological domain.
        philosophy, the love of this wisdom or knowledge, is also ontological
        in nature.
        table, as a material thing, belongs in the ontical domain. we may
        need practical wisdom in order to make one or put one to imaginative
        use, but we need philosophy, that intangible good, that ontological
        reality, to question the nature of a table, and the relationship of
        human perception to that table.

        Hartmann posits categories of inanimate, non-sentient animate,
        sentient animate, and conscious [spiritual] animate (this is all from
        memory, and from reading his work in translation).
        So table would be in first category, then flower, then spaniel, then
        human being.

        Brief initial definitions, then.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
        > Let me try to get into the most difficult of philosophical waters,
        > without disappearing beneath the waves. I want to elucidate
        > Heidegger's distinction between the ontical and the ontological,
        which
        > is, in my view, intimately related to Nikolai Hartmann's ontological
        > category hierarchy, with the aim of explaining the precise nature of
        > my distrust of the concept, choice, especially in its final,
        > political, consequences. It may be advisable to take this in
        stages.
        > Taking a deep breath, I post this first.
        >
        > Louise
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.