{"id":2218,"date":"2009-03-10T16:17:47","date_gmt":"2009-03-10T21:17:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=2218"},"modified":"2011-09-27T18:59:59","modified_gmt":"2011-09-27T23:59:59","slug":"ontic-ontological","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2009\/03\/10\/ontic-ontological\/","title":{"rendered":"ontic ontological"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marchart, Oliver. “The absence at the heart of presence: radical democracy and the ‘ontology of lack”. Tonder, Lars. Lasse Thomassen. Radical Democracy: Politics between abundance and lack<\/span>. Manchester UP. 2005.<\/p>\n

Tada:<\/span><\/strong> Ontology was originally the study of being-qua-being <\/em>starting with Aristotle. Then with Descartes and culminating in the work of Berkeley and Kant and heirs it turned increasingly to epistemology<\/span> shifting from being-qua-being <\/em>to questions of being-qua-understanding. <\/em>Thus starting to look for the ‘grounds and conditions of of understanding and bypassing all the stuff about the nature of being.\u00a0 Then comes Heidegger but prepped by Hegel, Schelling and Nietzsche, there is a return to ontology.<\/p>\n

However, ontology did not re-emerge in full glory<\/em>, as a return to the pre-critical ‘pre-modern’ stable ground of being. By the time of its return, the ccategory of being had turned into something intrinsically precarious, something haunted<\/em> by the spectre of its own absent ground.\u00a0 For this reason, today’s ontology must not be understood in terms of, to use Derrida’s words, traditional onto-theology<\/em>, in which the role of being was to provide us with a stable ground, rather it must be conceived of as hauntology<\/em>, where being is always out-of-joint, never fully present (18).<\/p>\n

Heidegger work points out … He pointed out that metaphysical thought<\/span><\/p>\n