<P> "Without a doubt, Aristotle thinks of time on the basis of ousia as parousia, on the basis of the now, the point, etc . And yet an entire reading could be organized that would repeat in Aristotle's text both this limitation and its opposite ." </P> <P> This argument is largely based on the earlier work of Heidegger, who in Being and Time claimed that the theoretical attitude of pure presence is parasitical upon a more originary involvement with the world in concepts such as the ready - to - hand and being - with . Friedrich Nietzsche is a more distant, but clear, influence as well . </P> <P> The presence to which Heidegger refers is both a presence as in a "now" and also a presence as in an eternal present, as one might associate with God or the "eternal" laws of science . This hypostatized (underlying) 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 . </P>

Who found fault with the metaphysics of presence