>Wrong again pretty boy - it is the essence that is the identifable thing (Saul)
If that were so, then the artist would only need to present something which we could identify in order to unconceal its essence. Regarding a pair of peasant's shoes, a quick polaroid would do the trick -- no Van Gogh is required. But, come to think of it, Heidegger's explanation of Van Gogh's shoes could just as easily be applied to any quick, cheap, disposable image. So, I suppose Saul is right. According to Heidegger "it is the essence that is the identifiable thing". (which is why Heidegger's thinking is so confused) > "our hypothetical artist looks at a chair and draws a single quivering line - that sums up the essence of the being of things in general and the object they were looking at in specific." (Saul) But in order to identify a hypothetical scribbler as an artist, don't we first need to identify the specific object whose essence he is unconcealing ? Does Heidegger ever suggest that an artist can "sum up the essence of the being of things in general" without unconcealing something specific? (whether its the shoes of a peasant or the god in a temple). ____________________________________________________________ Click here for free information on how to become certified as a project management professional. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ9l0iTmjEMz29yODXMFzYZl YSwIyl3GURXNpfkMq5A5IlJZjMgMo/
