From: mtroth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Roth)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:16:13 -0500
this is of interest to me as i am suspicious of both terms. perhaps someone
may be of help to me in sorting this out.
have usually evokes a metonymic relation to "possess" (i have a car, for
example). which in turn suggests "property". not only in the sense that my
car is my property, but in the sense that "having a car" is a property. a
property of what? of mine, of course. the property is my property. how did
i come to have this property? well, in some sense, i appropriated it, made
it my property. but how may i appropriate the property of being able to
appropriate? does this mean that all properties, and all property, rests on
my "being-able" (i.e., seinkoennen)?
in other words, this claim makes a distinction that i can't quite grasp
(that is, take into my possession such that it becomes a distinction that i
*have* some idea of and so can make something out of it).
> ...by the way. i
>rarely BE frustrated. i may 'have' feelings of frustration sometimes and
>that is all.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---