Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The problem with Heideggers

Expand Messages
  • Tudor
    On the contrary, I find similarities between H. and V.: the story in-between, the weight sedimented in history that pulls thought toward the presence &
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On the contrary, I find similarities between H. and V.: the "story"
      in-between, the weight sedimented in history that pulls thought toward
      the presence & meaning of being, etc.

      Heidegger's playful etymology is annoying at times, but mostly
      stimulating, unlike Derrida's (D. goes nowhere). A good place to start
      is a late series of lectures in Freiburg, "Was heisst Denken?" (What
      is called thinking?) If I remember well, H.'s comeback after the
      interdiction to teach or speak in public.

      In those lectures H. quotes very relevant material from Parmenides,
      Nietzsche, Holderlin, and (again, if memory serves well) some
      Aristotle. He aims for the thought that thinks itself through...
      thinking. Reflection is circular, in some way.

      Regards,

      Tudor Munteanu

      P.S. On Heidegger's course on the Sophist, and its shortcomings see
      Francisco J Gonzalez' interesting article in the Journal of the
      History of Philosophy

      http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_philosophy/v040/40.3gonzalez.pdf

      Mr. Dolph also wrote a short review on Amazon.com for Gonzalez'
      excellent book (Dialectic and Dialogue, Plato's Practice of
      Philosophical Inquiry, 1999). I met Dr. Gonzalez at a Heidegger
      conference in New York, in 2001 :)



      --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "S. Barret Dolph" <wheds8@...> wrote:
      >
      > This is an old strategy that starts with Aristotle, and to some
      extent in
      > Plato but in different way. The presentation is given as if the
      author is
      > merely listing facts in a neutral way. How then should a commentary be
      > written? As a mathematical proportion?
      >
      > The odd thing about Heidegger's commentary is that they are almost
      circular.
      > Heidegger shows his theory in the commentary which comes from the
      commentary
      > which goes back into the theory. In the end it is like a hall of
      mirrors
      > without anyone there. It is no wonder that the deconstructionists who
      > followed him ended up saying there is no author and there is no
      reader. Is
      > there any reason to believe that Heidegger did this in order to free
      us from
      > the weight of the past?
      >
      >
      > On Sunday 29 January 2006 23:12, Martin Pagnan wrote:
      > > The problem with Heidegger, and Hegel, is that they used bad
      technique.
      > > They searched the works of the known "great thinkers" to find passages
      > > to support their positions
      >
    • Rhydon Jackson
      First off, I concur on the closing points about H vs. V. That discussion has wandered off. Which is OK with me. I think that discussion has continued to
      Message 42 of 42 , Feb 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        First off, I concur on the closing points about H vs. V. That
        discussion has wandered off. Which is OK with me. I think that
        discussion has continued to unfold in a very interesting way. But, I am
        personally more focused on Mr. Munteanu's refutation of V's primary
        interpretation of Aristotle. There, H comes in more as a helpful
        contrast with the allegedly careless V than anything else.

        If the first list makes more sense, that's all right, although I can't
        see why.

        I hate to be so clueless, but maybe it would be worthwhile to hammer out
        the Aristotle a little more clearly.

        First off, 'partaking' for 'metalepsis' seems about equivalent to me,
        but OK. I note that Joe Sachs uses that translation too.

        Now, Mr. Munteanu noted that

        <<
        thought (noesis) acts on its own, but it can be the same
        as the actuality of the object, so in this sense it truly "partakes"
        in it. But the object is not the efficient cause. And it cannot be
        said to partake in my thought, either. It is passive in its
        relationship to me
        >>

        So, second, noesis acts on its own. Is this acting a motion? If so, is
        human noesis automotion? How are we to understand Aristotle's
        contention that "thought is moved by the intelligible?"

        Third, noesis can be the same as the actuality of its object.
        'Actuality' here translates energeia, is that right? Is there a
        concrete example handy of noesis being the same as the acuality of its
        object?

        Fourth, the object is not the efficient cause. OK. But, a cause
        nonetheless, right? Then, what sort of cause?

        Fifth, the object of thought cannot be said to partake in the thought.
        OK. But, what does that mean in the cases where thought is the same as
        the actuality of the object of the thought? In what does the sameness
        consist if it cannot be said to be a mutual partaking of a single nature?

        Sixth, and not quite directly related to Mr. Munteanu's reply, a key
        sentence in V's treatment is Met 1072b20. Does the thinking Aristotle
        describes there extend to humans or not?

        I look forward to any help on these issues as time permits and am very
        grateful that to Mr. Munteanu for putting such a specfic criticism of
        Voegelin's work to the forum.

        Rhydon Jackson

        PS. The treatment in The Consciousness of the Ground is paralleled
        somewhat by one orginally written in English as Reason: The Classic
        Experience. So we have at least 4 renditions of the key sentence by V.
        The original German of Anamnesis, the two English translations of it,
        and the English one given by Voegelin in the Reason essay.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.