Originally posted by Vladamir no1 I hope this definition makes sense. To those of you who were genuine with your interest but were confused I apologise and hope this defintion clears things up. As for you 'others' who trawl this forum to pedantically nay anally pick apart any statement or word that you 'think' will allow you to have fun, grow up and stick to the general forum.
It's ...[text shortened]... ontology wins, all we have that's intrinsic is primal urges, the need to procreate etc.
So all you've been asking is whether we come hardwired with a moral sense or, rather, are habituated to a moral sense? Eep, a little jargon is a dangerous thing.
Note to dottewell: You're right about the bastardization of Heidegger.
Originally posted by bbarr So all you've been asking is whether we come hardwired with a moral sense or, rather, are habituated to a moral sense? Eep, a little jargon is a dangerous thing.
Note to dottewell: You're right about the bastardization of Heidegger.
If it is, it is an unintentional one....of course I know of Martin Heidegger but I've yet to read him! I guess great minds think alike...Looks like this criticism of me has turned out to be a compliment! thanks guys 🙂
P.S In what piece does Heidegger discuss this topic?
Originally posted by bbarr So all you've been asking is whether we come hardwired with a moral sense or, rather, are habituated to a moral sense? Eep, a little jargon is a dangerous thing.
Note to dottewell: You're right about the bastardization of Heidegger.
A little jargon as you put it is in reality a short an easy quicker way to say 'historical materialism' for example than to express what it means....Ergo the use of 'ontological priority' as a quick an easy way to express a concept, its not my fault if you guys haven't heard of it, its quite a common academic term, honest guv 🙂
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 If it is, it is an unintentional one....of course I know of Martin Heidegger but I've yet to read him! I guess great minds think alike...Looks like this criticism of me has turned out to be a compliment! thanks guys 🙂
P.S In what piece does Heidegger discuss this topic?
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 A little jargon as you put it is in reality a short an easy quicker way to say 'historical materialism' for example than to express what it means....Ergo the use of 'ontological priority' as a quick an easy way to express a concept, its not my fault if you guys haven't heard of it, its quite a common academic term, honest guv 🙂
Sure, jargon can be helpful. The problem is that you don't understand Heidegger's notion of 'ontological priority'. If you did, you'd realize that it has nothing to do with your question, which concerns the extent to which moral sensibilities are innate.
Originally posted by bbarr Sure, jargon can be helpful. The problem is that you don't understand Heidegger's notion of 'ontological priority'. If you did, you'd realize that it has nothing to do with your question, which concerns the extent to which moral sensibilities are innate.
But your statement is (with due respect) irrelevant..........This thread/statement/question was not about Heidegger's conceptualisation of ontological priority but more a generic conception of it....
P.S Thanks for the info...Being and time...I'll check it out when I have time (iF YOU'LL EXCUSE THE PUN) 🙂
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 But your statement is (with due respect) irrelevant..........This thread/statement/question was not about Heidegger's conceptualisation of ontological priority but more a generic conception of it....
P.S Thanks for the info...Being and time...I'll check it out when I have time (iF YOU'LL EXCUSE THE PUN) 🙂
O.K., great. So, you're not using the phrase as Heidegger used it. Rather, you're using it in a more generic sense. You're certainly not using it any analytic sense, and you're not using it in any continental sense with which I'm familiar. Yet you claim that the notion you're using is ubiquitous in academic circles. So, where did you originally encounter the term?
Originally posted by bbarr O.K., great. So, you're not using the phrase as Heidegger used it. Rather, you're using it in a more generic sense. You're certainly not using it any analytic sense, and you're not using it in any continental sense with which I'm familiar. Yet you claim that the notion you're using is ubiquitous in academic circles. So, where did you originally encounter the term?
The theory of 'gender', for example gender and ethnicity/race are cultural/social structures layered upon an ontological priority.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 The theory of 'gender', for example gender and ethnicity/race are cultural/social structures layered upon an ontological priority.
So you were asking if morality is a cultural construct or "intrinsic"?
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 The theory of 'gender', for example gender and ethnicity/race are cultural/social structures layered upon an ontological priority.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 The theory of 'gender', for example gender and ethnicity/race are cultural/social structures layered upon an ontological priority.
The proper term in gender theory for this claim is 'social constructionism'. Can you cite me one peer-reviewed academic journal that uses the term 'ontological priority' in the way you're using it?
Originally posted by bbarr The proper term in gender theory for this claim is 'social constructionism'. Can you cite me one peer-reviewed academic journal that uses the term 'ontological priority' in the way you're using it?
Just a sec. I've been using this forum as proof of peer review for all my other blogs on the net. No good?
Do we have ontological priority?
21 Apr '06 02:34
Back to Top