>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>I was once quite interested in phenomenology, but after studying some
>proponents of that approach, I came to the conclusion that it was too
>arbitrary to serve as a viable philosophical method. That is, one
>phenomenologist might describe something as X, but the next one would
>describe it as Y, and there didn't seem to be any clear criteria for
>deciding which description was right. That's fine for literature, poetry,
>graphic art, etc., but I don't think philosophy should be that
>loosey-goosey.
There is a certain extent to which SuZ is "Heidegger as Everyman" (I'm thinking of the Teutono-Angst and the obvious influence of the quasi-Protestant religious experience Heidegger seems to have been going through at that time, but I think that the broad aspects of it are universally applicable to human experience (the delimitation of being by death, the futural horizon of understanding, things given as use-objects first and foremost, the interpenetration of the temporal ecstases, the givenness of Sein as a whole being being coterminous with the givenness of the world as a whole in such phenomena as Angst, joy and boredom). But maybe that's just my personal description. :)
_________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup