Just read what Heidegger has to say. If in the course of studying Jesus and the celebration of the sacraments "transubstantiation" is a profound and original thought to you and you write it down, then does that mean you should be celebrated for writing this thought down?  In the first place people will point out to you that the notion of transubstantiation is very old and in the second place most rational human beings will point out that it is either a metaphor or it is nonsense.  If Heidegger is only repeating banalities, truisms or propounding bad poetry about death, why should he be celebrated as a great philosopher? Unlike in philosophy, in other areas where interesting and profound discoveries can be made priority matters.  If you somehow rediscover Relativity Theory and write it down, and others make claims about your greatness and your genius, establishing an international movement in your name, why shouldn't I point out that Einstein got there first?  And if you cover your tracks by writing about Relativity Theory in terms of impenetrable ontological prose, why shouldn't I point out that Bertrand Russell's interpretation of Einstein makes your impenetrable prose irrelevant and simply a form of obscurantism.  And Russell got their 80 years before your "original" discovery. <div>On 5/10/06, Dennis Claxton <<a href="mailto:ddclaxton@earthlink.net">ddclaxton@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Jerry wrote: >  Heidegger's thoughts on death when made clear are neither profound >nor original. I never get this.  If someone comes across an important idea and begins to understand it, then that experience is in itself original and profound for the reader.  Who cares if a thinker, in one person's opinion, is "neither profound nor original" ? </blockquote></div> In the first place if great claims of originality and profundity are made for a thinker then the originality and profundity of what the thinker wrote matters. If in the course of studying Jesus and the celebration of the sacraments "transubstantiation" is a profound and original thought to you and you write it down, then does that mean you should be celebrated for writing this thought down?  In the first place people will point out to you that the notion of transubstantiation is very old and in the second place most rational human beings will point out that it is either a metaphor or it is nonsense.  If Heidegger is only repeating banalities, truisms or propounding bad poetry about death, why should he be celebrated as a great philosopher? Unlike in philosophy, in other areas where interesting and profound discoveries can be made priority matters.  If you somehow rediscover Relativity Theory and write it down, and others make claims about your greatness and your genius, establishing an international movement in your name, why shouldn't I point out that Einstein got there first?  And if you cover your tracks by writing about Relativity Theory in terms of impenetrable ontological prose, why shouldn't I point out that Bertrand Russell's interpretation of Einstein makes your impenetrable prose irrelevant and simply a form of obscurantism.  And Russell got their 80 years before your "original" discovery. Just read what Heidegger has to say. -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/</a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/"> http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/ </a>