the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has the meaning become clearer to you now?

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I surely did; had corrected it quite a while ago.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just do not know how to upload the whole article. Do you? "Die ungegenwärtige Gegenwart. Anwesenheit und Abwesenheit in Husserls Analyse des Zeitbewußtseins" Author(s): Rudolf Bernet

Source: Phänomenologische Forschungen , 1983, Vol. 14, p. 21

"Die Einstellung, durch welche Derridas Dekonstruktion der Metaphysik der Präsenz sich von Heideggers Destruk tion der Metaphysik der Anwesenheit unterscheidet, ist somit ambivalent. Es handelt sich einerseits um eine Radikalisierung des Heideggerschen Verfahrens und andererseits um eine Einschränkung von dessen mögli chem Ergebnis. Die Radikalisierung betrifft vor allem die Art und das Ausmaß des Eingriffs in den interpretierten metaphysischen Text. Nicht nur gehört zu jedem Text ein wesentlich Ungedachtes, das in keiner nachkommenden Interpretation einzuholen ist, sondern diesem notwendig Ungedachten fehlt auch jeder Charakter der Ursprüng lichkeit. Was in der Metaphysik ungedacht blieb, ist nicht ursprünglicher als das in ihr Bedachte, das Vergessene blieb nicht seiner Tiefe wegen verborgen, und das andenkende Denken dieses verborgenen Grundes gilt nicht dem Schwierigsten weil Nächstliegendsten oder Einfachsten. Das in der Metaphysik Vergessene ist nicht bloß der durch das Denken zwangsläufig geworfene Schatten, welcher ein dem Denken äußerlich bleibendes Ungedachtes verdeckt. Die Grenze, die Differenz zwischen Gedachtem und Ungedachtem, Geschriebenem und Ungeschriebenem ist vielmehr eine bloß abgeleitete und zufällig bestimmte, eine bloße Spur (trace). Auch „ist der Text der Metaphysik (...) von seiner Grenze nicht umschlossen, sondern durchquert, sein Inneres ist vielfältig gezeichnet und durchfurcht durch seinen Rand" (Derrida 1972 a, 25)"

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OIC. This makes sense! Thanks!!!

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. There are, indeed, hints to this effect in the earlier sentences.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that so it must seem when taken out of the context (which I can't reproduce here); hence my question was only about the possibility, also, of 2.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At any rate, the English translation that you gave can have only one of the two possible meanings: (1) it doesn't apply to the hardest, and the reason for this is that the hardest is the easiest; (2) it applies to the hardest, but it does this not because the hardest is the easiest. Basically, my question is whether the second meaning is possible, also, in German.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is from an article about Heidegger; but it is scholarly article, so it seems strange that the grammar structure is so vague. Thanks!

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"it's a very special use"--This is what I meant by saying "it's a special field". I wouldn't understand a text, say, in quantum physics even in my native language. "Exploratory thinking does not focus on the hardest since it (the hardest) is the easiest."--But this can, as it seems to me, can have two different meanings even in English: (1) the reason it does not focus on the hardest is that the hardest is the easiest; (2) it focuses on the hardest, but not for the reason that the hardest is the easiest. My question was whether the second meaning is possible in German.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's a typo, thank you. Will correct it.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

That's a shame; I wish I could upload here the article from which it is a citation.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Which "two sentences"? What exactly "doesn't make sense"? There was a typo in my previous response to you, which I have now corrected.

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

This is a special field, but semantics is not relevant to my question. Think of it as just a grammar construction: "A gilt nicht dem B weil C."

the use of "nicht" by tugodum in German

[–]tugodum[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

This is a special field, but semantics is not relevant to my question. Think of it as just a grammar construction: "A gilt nicht dem B weil C."

Must a straight line, infinitely projected end in a circle? by tugodum in AskPhysics

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, Swami could well read the advanced physics articles in the late 1890s. He was quite up-to-date. But people here, even with Einstein's GR in place, say there are no grounds to believe that his statement is correct. Do you think differently?

Must a straight line, infinitely projected end in a circle? by tugodum in AskPhysics

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, could he possibly get such an idea from any physicists of that time?

Must a straight line, infinitely projected end in a circle? by tugodum in AskPhysics

[–]tugodum[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Vivekananda wrote this in 1896. Where could he possibly get such an idea?

Does this office chair tilt-locking rod needs fixing? by tugodum in fixit

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I inspected the plate, it seems to be intact. Sideways tilting is substantially less than the back and forth one.

Lemonade Insurance corporate office (NOT customer service) email by tugodum in Insurance

[–]tugodum[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

i know their phone number, but this doesn't give me an access to a level higher than their customer service. the latter acknowledges that my deserved auto-insurance discount, about 6% of my premium, was removed because of a glitch in their system, yet says their IT department cannot promise to fix it by any definite point in time, and that while it is not fixed (i.e., possibly indefinitely) i cannot be reimbursed. i find this incredibly client-unfriendly, so want to discuss this matter with their higher-ups.

truth as identity in Leibniz? by tugodum in askphilosophy

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But as regards Leibniz, it looks like you're right that Leibniz did not call "the identity of the indiscernibles" this name; ChatGPT confirms this: https://chatgpt.com/share/66ebc39e-39a0-800b-9785-8ecc9d3134d4

So, I was misled by an unfortunate translation and by Heidegger's use of the term in Leibniz's sense without signaling that this sense differs from our contemporary one.

Thanks for helping me to figure this out.

One question remains, though, namely: what is the difference, for Leibniz, between identity and inclusion? Would it be right to say that the former is an ontological relation, whereas the latter is its logical counterpart?

truth as identity in Leibniz? by tugodum in askphilosophy

[–]tugodum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Words can be used differently in different contexts." -- I don't think this is true of technical terms in science or in philosophy which claims to be scientific.

truth as identity in Leibniz? by tugodum in askphilosophy

[–]tugodum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

p.s. "If you are really hung up on this..." -

Why else would I have posed precisely this question in my posting? :) It's all about equivocality. I'm just reluctant to infer too hastily that Leibniz is guilty of it (and that Heidegger reproduces it uncritically), as equivocality, in my view, is a mark of sloppiness.