Andrew Royle wrote: Therefore, rather than asking ‘What is Being?’, Heidegger begins with the question ‘ Whom is asking the question of Being?’ This question – the whom of Being – includes the possibility that the questioners themselves may actually contribute in some way to the Being under question. Heidegger’s starting point thus asks whom is this Being “that in its Being is concerned about its very Being.” (Being and Time, p.11)
What the FUCK? I thought that A. proper English was part of the requirements of articles published in Philosophy Now and B. being able to philosophize, generally speaking, requires an acute sense of understanding, which requires precision in language skills by the communicators.
This guy, Andrew Royle, despite having an English-sounding name, has only rudimentary but not fine knowledge of the English language.
He uses "whom" instead of "who" in the nominal case of the interrogative personal pronoun.
The nominal case of the personal interrogative pronoun is "who". Only those use "whom" instead of "who" where the nominal case is required, who are complete academic zeroes, and whish to elevate their perceived academicity by using "whom". But "whom" is the objective case of "who", and it ought not to, it must NOT be used as a nominal case. Therefore asking "Whom has forgot to close the door" is a sentence only a snobbish ignoramous bastard will write.
For instance (I can't believe I need to give this language lessons to editors and academics who have qualified to publish in a highly steemed journal):
"I kicked Fred." - "Whom did you kick?" is proper, as the object of the transitive verb is Fred, and therefore asking the object in a question, the pronoun "whom" is used.
"I kicked Fred." - "Who kicked Fred?" is proper use of "who", as the person doing the kicking is not an object of the action verb, but the noun of the sentence.
"I kicked Fred." - "Whom kicked Fred?" is completely wrong.
"I kicked Fred." - "Who did you kick?" It is colloquial, and fully accepted in proper usage in English. In a formal writing, it ought to be "Whom did you kick."
I should have thought that knowing English is a prerequisite for qualifications of editors. Now I am beginning to understand more and more about the poor quality of thought in the articles published in Philosophy Now. If the editor is unable to differentiate between well-written and wrongly written texts, then how can we expect the editor to differentiate between good and bad articles, between articles that make sense and don't make sense, between articles that are valuable and that are worthless crap?
The picture about the quality and standards of this magazine is getting clearer and clearer as the picture gets more and more into focus.