They tell us that they understand?
My question is what do they understand?
They tell us they are inclusive. My question is what do they mean by inclusion? 266 more words
Que existan ciertos paralelismos entre Heidegger y Cioran no autoriza a decir, como ha hecho Sloterdijk, que el segundo sea el doble oscuro del primero. La supuesta brillantez de tal caracterización resulta tan llamativa como desafortunada, y no pasa de ser una agitación cascabelera para llamar la atención. 1,170 more words
A unified theory — though not a theory of everything. Not philosophy of, with all its implications of dominance and omnicompetence (a philosophy of religion, of law, of fashion are all equally plausible), nor even simply philosophy and — but a unified theory of philosophy and some science. 1,212 more words
The problem with Heidegger is not that he gave us authenticity and inauthenticity in a more complicated way than we were willing to think them. Several have remarked on this, wondered how it is possible for Heidegger’s subject — Dasein — to be authentic when it is made clear that Dasein is always-already fallen-into inauthenticity. Some have even argued that this difficulty is a sign that Heidegger never really meant authenticity to be a possible mode of Dasein’s care. 464 more words