These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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