Re: Who does your ethical philosphies most match with ? (Quiz)
[ QUOTE ]
In case anyone's interested, here is where my confusion stemmed. This is a cut and paste from Purnell's recommended site:
The in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply "is." The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the internal negation or "nihilation" of the in-itself, on which it depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as "facticity" and "transcendence."
Is it just me? Or is this stuff a bit difficult to understand?
[/ QUOTE ]
Much of "existential" philosophy in the 20th century reads like nonsense. Crack open some Heidegger and you'll quickly agree with me.
|