tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7519920771197018236.post7748848904484023974..comments2022-03-27T05:42:47.464-03:00Comments on El obscuro: Quizás una rectificaciónel Directorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16265025562326423434noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7519920771197018236.post-87903042187092624692009-03-23T18:24:00.000-03:002009-03-23T18:24:00.000-03:00Si, pero estamos usando distintas acepciones del t...Si, pero estamos usando distintas acepciones del término "ser" por lo que nuestra cuestión no tiene nada que ver con la interdisciplinariedad sino que se reduce a un mero problema de sinonimia.el Directorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16265025562326423434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7519920771197018236.post-38600488353745421322009-03-23T16:37:00.000-03:002009-03-23T16:37:00.000-03:00me gusto lo de acuerdo molesto jejjeigual creo q s...me gusto lo de acuerdo molesto jejje<BR/>igual creo q su tiene q ver lo del ser mas alla si es eje de la discusion o no...ya q no creo q escape al tema y para ser comprendido algo tendria q verse en un marco interdisciplinario x decirlo de alguna maneraluliexperimenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475949370897055459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7519920771197018236.post-63091855645901810282009-03-23T11:59:00.000-03:002009-03-23T11:59:00.000-03:00Es bueno que cites a Heidegger y su término "Dasse...Es bueno que cites a Heidegger y su término "Dassein" (Una especie de Ser en el mundo) y sin duda que esa sería una preocupación muy fuerte si estubieramos discutiendo el problema del ser desde una perspectiva existencialista, pero esta discusión está más bien en las antípodas, en un marco de referencia ontológico-esencialista, es decir, no estamos preocupandonos del ser como experiencia sino del ser como cosa-en-sí (Kant) desligado del contexto histórico-social que lleva ligado a sí el dassein Heideggeriano y el ser-en-sí y el geist hegelianos.<BR/><BR/>Ese es igualmente un tema para discutir y lo haremos dentro de poco y creo que en ese marco de referencias lograremos un acuerdo molesto.el Directorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16265025562326423434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7519920771197018236.post-50062854062792273472009-03-23T11:29:00.000-03:002009-03-23T11:29:00.000-03:00yo veo todo esto y siempre y siempre esta enfocado...yo veo todo esto y siempre y siempre esta enfocado en una buqueda de la verdad en un plano superficial (en el sentido de lo racional y terrenal) y cientifico, pero me parece q hay algo q aporta a las individualidades, hablo de lo llamado "being", el ser, algo constante y abstraido, que existe en otra esfera en un plano mas profundo.<BR/>capaz m fui d tema....<BR/><BR/>*Some philosophers deny that the concept of "being" has any meaning at all, since we only define an object's existence by its relation to other objects, and actions it undertakes. The term "I am" has no meaning by itself; it must have an action or relation appended to it. This in turn has led to the thought that "being" and nothingness are closely related, developed in existential philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, as well as continental philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger have also written extensively on the concept of being. Hegel distinguishes between the being of objects (being in itself) and the being of people (Geist). Hegel, however, did not think there was much hope for delineating a "meaning" of being, because being stripped of all predicates is simply nothing.<BR/><BR/>Heidegger, in his quest to re-pose the original pre-Socratic questions of Being (of why is there something rather than nothing), wondered at how to meaningfully ask the question of the meaning of being, since it is both the greatest, as it includes everything that is, and the least, since no particular thing can be said of it. He distinguishes between different modes of beings: a privative mode is present-at-hand, whereas beings in a fuller sense are described as ready-to-hand. The one who asks the question of Being is described as Da-sein ("there/here-being") or being-in-the-world. Sartre, popularly understood as misreading Heidegger (an understanding supported by Heidegger's essay "Letter on Humanism" which responds to Sartre's famous address, "Existentialism is a Humanism"), employs modes of being in an attempt to ground his concept of freedom ontologically by distinguishing between being-in-itself and being-for-itself.luliexperimenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475949370897055459noreply@blogger.com