-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: dinsdag 3 februari 2004 18:18
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: there's a riot going on
on 3/2/04 5:07 pm, Bakker, R.B.M. de at R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx wrote:
> The ontological is in the ontic,
> but hidden
... that's why being is the being _of_ each and every being?
'Each and every' is an abstraction, all metaphysics agrees on that.
For instance in proofs of a first beginning, where the cause is of
a different order than the effects. Still Leibniz: there is a reason,
why things are as they are. This reason is not one of the things itself.
Otherwise the concatenation of things would be endless.
But you might mean: das Seiende im Ganzen, beings as such as a whole.
Note, that already the formula "Das Seiende" comprises everything
(also the possible), and everything already *as* being. You could very
well say, that the word "Das Seiende", or: "ta onta" in Greek, already
has these 2 functions of itself. We don't MAKE that by way of logical
functions. We can listen (or not).
And that is what is to be seen, but is so hard to see, esp. in
post-metaphysical times, not because our eyes are not good enough,
but because this being *itself* is and remains essentially hidden.
(but *that* is the way it relates to us: its occlusion is not to be
lifted. We do never reach it, but can stay near)
be-longing, but
for each being to be (showing), the being of that being can not be (hidden)?
But the airplane in QCT does NOT show itself as a thing, not even as an
object. It [is] sthing else, cf. Bestand, resource. Everyone uses it, they
know what it 'is', that is: what one can do with it. But there is not a
Being of all things: airplanes, trees, dissertations, threats. (Sometimes H
makes enormous lists: for this reason). If we think there is, THEN metaphysics
is continued the moment it has become impossible, and that is: (essential)
lying. In that case, an ontological difference is maintained that has the
sole function of enabling us to survive in the Gestell.
So, if there is even no Being of beings anymore, how can ever, from then on,
beings appear AS beings???? (this is where your discussion with Jud takes
place: there is no phenomenology that simply begins with things around, as a
basis for a dispute between two persons)
Assuming that: yes, no being of whatever being can remain hidden. But not
in itself, that makes no sense, but because its being occurs (An-wesen,
pre-sence) for/to what or who? There's still no-one there to receive, so
that's what H says we can do, everyone in and on his own way)
regards
rene
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
