In fairness I should add that I think Andy is absolutely correct to draw a distinction between two very different ontologies (or approaches to ontological issues). I just don't agree with where he draws the line between the two. I am taking the liberty of attaching two chapters that deal with exactly this issue (plus the introduction) from a book currently in press, to take a shot at explaining how I see the distinction, and its importance. Martin
Attachment:
Packer ch7 & 8.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Martin Packer wrote: > Andy, > > I'm sorry, but you are misreading phenomenology. Husserl and Heidegger had completely different ontologies, as I have tried to explain here more than once. To claim that your reading is a 'fact' is going to mislead people. > > Martin > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> : be aware of the fact that for everyone from >> Aristotle to Hegel to Marx to Vygotsky, "Being" and >> "ontological" meant one thing (or at least one related set >> of concepts) and from Husserl to Heidegger to Sartre and so >> on, it meant the exact opposite. Both sets of concepts are >> fine, but they have very different referents. >> >> --------------------------- >> > > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca