Talk:Metaphysics of presence

Last sentence
The last sentence on the page appears to be without a verb...anyone want to take a guess?141.211.104.245 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect somebody wanted to play a joke on Heideggerian terminology. Perhaps this sentence should be deleted altogether? Koenraad Cl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is extremely confusing, but it is impossible to improve, I presence.193.11.8.150 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems an implied second line of thought is missing in the last sentence; it ends halfway. To make sense of what's there it could be rewritten like this: "This hypostatized belief in presence is undermined by novel phenomenological ideas — such that presence itself does not subsist, but comes about primordially through the action of our futural projection, our realization of finitude and the reception or rejection of the traditions of our time." Does that sound sensible? Untitled 2008 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrible
This article is terrible. I have no clue what the phrase means from the short and confused explanation given, and there are no sources cited. I suspect this may be because the idea itself is vacuous nonsense, but nevertheless, there should be sources. --69.200.228.147 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Metaphysics of the Future?
Good article! It answered some unexpected questions I came up against in trying to better understand Deconstruction. I anticipate the day an American Philosopher of the past will be added to the context of this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semeion (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"All Western Thought" ?
"...the concept of time prevalent in all Western thought has largely remained unchanged since Aristotle..." Sounds like Heidegger didn't get out very much. By 1927 Einstein's theories were common knowledge and the great age of quantum theory was well underway. Bergson is pretty much irrelevant to a serious investigation of time. Perhaps this is an irrelevant personal observation, but I couldn't let such a sweeping statement stand.. What I see on this page is the usual rapid descent into jargon following a brief introductory appeal to authority (limited in domain) that tends to characterize attempts to present the principles of deconstruction to a general audience. I would suggest the use of some examples and more rigorus thinking about what one wants to say and how to convey it in a manner that results in a better understanding rather than additional confusion. I suspect the problem may lie with proponents of the subject matter themselves who seem somewhat cultish in their use of an arcane language that seeems to aspire to a quasi-scientific rigor while eschewing or ignoring the actual findings of science.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TNT
I've reduced the article to a single sentence. Let's start over. To future editors reading this, if you understand anything in the previous versions of this page, god bless but please attempt to translate it into human readable language before adding any of it back. Psychastes (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)