i understand why you would want to get rid of objects and intentionality, but i don't get how "towards" doesn't imply an object
-
-
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
I wasn’t sure I remembered the text well enough to give an answer without checking, but
@FateOfTwist_ gave same ones I would have, so2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
so presumably they are right and I don’t need to check! Some further points, though:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
you don’t need to have the towards-which in mind for your activity to be organized by it. You might not be aware of it at that time, or >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
you could be entirely ignorant of it (if contributing to a group project whose aim no one explained to you).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
(I think this is probably right although not altogether confident without going back to the text.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Other thing to say is that everyone, including later H himself, agrees that the whole analysis of being-toward-death is unfixably wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
and that is where the general analysis of being-toward was headed, so you probably don’t need to take that concept seriously either
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Dreyfus’ opinion was: ready-to-hand vs present-at-hand is the main insight worth rescuing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Definitely, not all Heideggerians agree. There’s other stuff in there that may be right & important too. But a lot is just wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
… I’ve just looked at the B&T index and there’s a lot of being-towards.
-
-
If one passage particularly prompted your question, I can try to offer an amateur interpretation.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.