Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

The thought that we have a paper on Mr. H almost makes me cry... the fact that it's only like two pages makes it a little better. Okay... first of all- Dr. M posed the question: "Why do we need to know this stuff?" Also, H's question of "Why are there essence instead of nothing?" is a hard one for me because it seems rather post modern and Rachel know's what I think about post modernism... As Dr. Olsen would say "Maybe we can't understand it because there is nothing to understand.'

I am in no way saying that this is meaningless information. This is a step towards truth. It is good stuff... (I think) I just don't know that any of us are getting it though. Further more, when one comes to a conclusion we tend to answer with "Maybe... or... that's a good way to put it..." but so far... we are continuing to voice our opinions and be a confused mess when in reality the only way to sort everything out is to state what we know. What bits of truth have we gleaned from this reading? The hammer and nail analogy was a good one. I am not sure I can give the explanation justice as Dr. Abernathy, but in essence it is that we are not aware of every detail of an action or an object. We see a chair, not shaped wood covered in fabric.

What other truths do we know from the reading? Post them as comments so that we can help each other get organized, know why, and... hopefully write a coherent paper!

Commented on Joy's