tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post6939770199044378188..comments2023-10-22T04:50:28.588-07:00Comments on Life's Private Book: H. Allen Orr, Kant and NagelDavid T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-11338829830984204002014-09-25T03:04:56.342-07:002014-09-25T03:04:56.342-07:00i removed the previous comment because i had accid...i removed the previous comment because i had accidentally sent the first one twice thinking it did not go through.grateful to Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337758690863008570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-90472062942033401992014-09-25T03:03:48.016-07:002014-09-25T03:03:48.016-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grateful to Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337758690863008570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-56300079210506181942014-09-25T03:03:38.165-07:002014-09-25T03:03:38.165-07:00Dear David T,
I like your blog.
Have you ever care...Dear David T,<br />I like your blog.<br />Have you ever carefully read the Qur’an.<br />Please check it out.<br />I am a Muslim and I think you will find it very deep philosophically and very in tuned with your reasonings.grateful to Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337758690863008570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-54371599882814984752013-03-27T16:03:17.565-07:002013-03-27T16:03:17.565-07:00thanks for the hints, I'll look into them.thanks for the hints, I'll look into them.David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-60716527899928589592013-03-27T15:19:15.460-07:002013-03-27T15:19:15.460-07:00I only got glimpses of Heidegger till I read Haim ...I only got glimpses of Heidegger till I read Haim Gordon's book "Heidegger and Buber on the I-Thou Controversy" <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=OB4LOcqcRiIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+I+thou+controversy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fm5TUajgDaHi4AOJtIHYDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nyaceCQio2wC&pg=PA43&dq=John+Deely+via+the+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V29TUd_iGfbK4AOqrIDYAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Deely's Book</a> was good too: the thesis is that Dasein is St. Thomas's intentional being. The Gordon book in particular was helpful for translating Heidegger's key terms into everyday language - "present at hand" basically just means "physical thing", etc. But I don't know how anyone would get it apart from a pretty big academic library. James Chastekhttp://thomism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-72594431522098294672013-03-27T14:43:11.301-07:002013-03-27T14:43:11.301-07:00I know I should read Heidegger; I tried years ago ...I know I should read Heidegger; I tried years ago and could not fathom him... you've inspired me to give it another go.<br /><br />It's interesting how individuals respond to philosophers. I'd always heard that Kant was difficult to read, but I found the Critique of Pure Reason, if not easy, relatively straightforward and illuminating. Heidegger is also supposed to be difficult... and he was!David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-38762703499740859542013-03-27T07:15:30.377-07:002013-03-27T07:15:30.377-07:00This is a wonderful and very fruitful argument. Yo...This is a wonderful and very fruitful argument. Your "Y" is in equal measure a good introduction to the Scholastic "esse intentionalis" and Heidegger's Dasein. The X/ Y division is a nice intro into the ontic/ontological or categorical and its opposite. <br /><br />Right now I'm intrigued by Y not just as generative of the unity of X's, but also as generative of the intelligibility of X, that is, Y as an agent intellect. The problem, at least since the middle ages, has been in trying to make such a being a finite self. <br /><br />One difficulty in Feser's approach is that the reduction of Y to anything existent, even the immaterial, fails to capture its unique "existence" (hard to avoid the word) as intentional. Heidegger, it seems to me, saw this problem more clearly than anyone. The Y is the "nothing", or "sein" with a line through it. <br /><br />One downside of all thee debates is that, given all the time it takes to simply establish the existence of the intentional as opposed to the entitative, few go on to develop the idea of the intentional. We are left with its bare "existence", even though this is not the best word. James Chastekhttp://thomism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com