Article/Publication Details
Views: 5276

RESPONSE TO REVIEW BY A. PATKUL
OF THE ARTICLE BY D. FEDCHUK «SCHOLASTIC DISTINCTION IN FINITE BEING AND ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE»
(HORIZON, Vol. 2(2), 2013)

Abstract
The response gives answers to some questions and objections which were formulated by A. Patkul in his review. Among them it is possible to point out following: 1) the meaning of understanding and thinking by Heidegger; 2) the differences between these two modes of existence in the context of traditional idealism; 3) the meaning of logos as of something that expicates the sense of being; 4) the connection between being and time and the explanation of the structure of temporality; 5) whether the philosophy of Heidegger deals with the univocal sense of being. The article also tries to explain that the essence of time roots in the mode of «present». Praesence unites all ecstasies of temporality and constitutes present in its fullness. In the view of ontology, now funds the modes of the past and of the future. This thesis is justified in the Heidegger’s article «Was heißtDenken?» where he shows that unveiling and present belong each other and constitute the essence of time.

Key words
Essence, existence, distinction in being, ontological difference, temporality, Dasein, Duns Scotus, Martin Heidegger.