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

Re: wearying debate

Expand Messages
  • Herman B. Triplegood
    Well, that was a pretty good rant Wil. Hb3g ... in the ... genuine and ... I consider ... ones that ... a lot of ... you have ... you have ... being ... you
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, that was a pretty good rant Wil.

      Hb3g

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Hb3g
      >
      > Yes, that was a rant, but there is nothing wrong with a rant or two
      in the
      > course of one's day, every now and then, assuming that it is
      genuine and
      > self-defining. I have mine too.
      >
      > Look, friend, I have read Heidegger and studied him since the 70s.
      I consider
      > him to be one of the 'must reads' of our tradition. My comments are
      ones that
      > are, as they say, "considered", that is to say life-long and after
      a lot of
      > soul searching along that highway of despair (to gloss Hegel) that
      you have
      > described so passionately.
      >
      > Yes, of course, Heidegger is a profound thinker. He is everything
      you have
      > said he is. But there is another moment of doing philosophy, of
      being
      > 'authentic' perhaps, when for whatever reason and at whatever time
      you say to yourself
      > "yes" or "no", and then again louder and more emphatically. There
      was just such
      > a moment for me with Heidegger when I all of a sudden felt as if in
      a
      > mausoleum -- or better, at a church service (a mass) when reading
      him. The
      > 'religiosity' that I glean in Heidegger, which he believes is
      poetry, is indicative of
      > both his conservative politics that 'hearkens' the missing and
      missed past
      > rather than pointing to the proud present and liberational future;
      as well as his
      > almost Hamlet-like inability to do much of anything at all but
      brood his
      > thought. That is my reading, but I would say that it is more than
      JUST my own
      > subjective interpretation.
      >
      > In any event, assuming the above to be understandable, the issue
      then comes
      > down to the ethical/political. In my view Heidegger's politics are
      entirely
      > aesthetic! Let's not forget that his attachment to Nazism (which
      lasted until the
      > allies entered Berlin) was FOR THE SAKE OF CULTURE. Like our
      own "culture
      > warriors" of the rightwing kind, his dread of loss (of homeland as
      destiny) lead
      > to the same bait and switch politics that has stuptified Junkers
      and bumpkins
      > alike, so well described by Thomas Frank in his 'What's the Matter
      with
      > Kansas". While Heidegger was certainly not a racist (or at least
      not an
      > anti-Semite), his thought does in fact lead one to an almost Jung-
      like insistence on a
      > 'Deutschland fur Deutsche' regimen which, when understood within
      the general
      > claims for a general philosophy, one which precludes "Russia and
      America", and
      > presumably everyone else but for the Greeks themselves (which are
      mostly fantasy
      > images for him), well --- the generality becomes apparent as all-
      too specific
      > "doesn't it" (as you like to put it). Heidegger's works prior to
      and during
      > the fascist period are interesting and thought provoking, but they
      are
      > inherently reactionary and intolerant. Heidegger wouldn't
      know "freedom" if it bit him
      > in the arse.
      >
      > That is always the problem when one regards "History" as a special
      unfolding,
      > as destiny or 'eschaton': the question becomes "whose history?".
      Whose
      > destiny? Oh yes, the "destiny of Being". Hiding behind the anti-
      humanism of
      > anthropomorphic transcendental signifiers. Well, that's an old
      game, although God is
      > usually the moniker given. But Heidegger is too modern for
      that. 'Only a an
      > empty transcendental signifier can save us now,' as he sort of
      said. So if there
      > is no God that can save us, it is the rememory, the alethea, of
      Being. Really?
      > Not the labor theory of value, or the scientific method, or global
      labor
      > movements, or impeachment hearings, or ....?
      >
      > Not for Heidegger! Too onical, I guess. It is like a aesthete who
      loves
      > Music, but who is bored with everything he hears. Love the ideal!
      But we all know
      > what absolutes are. They are an abyss. (If you stare too long at
      the abyss,
      > ....)
      >
      > And finally, and if I may be so bold as to suggest: an attachment
      to any
      > thinker is almost always a recipe for foolishness. I think a good
      dose of
      > Nietzsche is in order.
      >
      > Rant for rant.
      >
      > Yours,
      > Wil
      >
      > In a message dated 9/13/08 11:55:18 PM, hb3g@... writes:
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Well...?
      > >
      > > Isn't truth a great mystery? What about un-truth? Isn't that an
      even
      > > greater mystery than truth? What about what we know? How do we
      know?
      > > Why do we know?
      > >
      > > Better yet, what about what we don't know? Something is revealed
      to
      > > us, and we call that truth. For, isn't truth, when it comes right
      > > down to it, what is revealed to actually be the case? So, we DO
      know
      > > truth. We know something. We know some things. That is for sure.
      And
      > > yet, there is always something more that is not revealed to us,
      > > something that remains hidden from us. How else do we account for
      the
      > > fact that truth is something that we must achieve? That truth
      isn't
      > > just handed to us, as if on a silver platter, when we are born?
      And
      > > yet, this very fact, that truth isn't just handed to us, that we
      have
      > > to achieve truth, brings us to the very mystery that truth is even
      > > concealed in the first place, that there can be any such thing as
      not
      > > knowing the truth of the matter, or, even knowing the truth of the
      > > matter wrongly, i.e., being in un-truth, as opposed to being in
      truth.
      > >
      > > What about THAT? As philosophers, what do we say about THAT? What
      do
      > > we DO about that? Do we just tack a label onto it? Do we dismiss
      it
      > > as "mysticism" and just move on to "more scientific" topics of
      > > discussion? Do we, as philosophers, simply assume, out of hand,
      that
      > > the fact that we do NOT know, counts for nothing at all?
      > >
      > > How un-Socratic that actually is! How un-Platonic it actually
      turns
      > > out to be! The whole point of the Socratic method, of many of the
      > > major dialogues of Plato, the "Socratic" ones as well as
      > > the "Platonic" ones, especially, the Meno, the Phaedo, the
      > > Theaetetus, the Sophist, the Parmenides, is, EXACTLY, this very
      > > mystery of our NOT always being in the truth.
      > >
      > > Heidegger has EXACTLY this very mystery in view. Where there is
      > > truth, there is also un-truth. Where there is knowing, there is
      also
      > > not knowing. Where there is Being, there is also NOT Being. It is
      as
      > > obvious to Heidegger, as it is to anyone else that it matters
      whether
      > > or not these recondite reflections upon the meaning of Being
      > > ultimately cash out into the realms of the existential and the
      > > political.
      > >
      > > But, like good old Socrates, and also Plato, and many other deep
      > > thinkers on the mystery of life, Boethius, even Kant, we are
      warned
      > > against the temptation to level off the ontological insight, to
      turn
      > > it into a series of trivial observations about our everyday Being
      in
      > > the world. What Heidegger, and Socrates, and Plato, are all
      talking
      > > about is something very obvious. It is SO obvious, in fact, that
      we
      > > totally miss it, and we altogether lack any insight into it at
      all.
      > >
      > > I was convinced of this long before I read Heidegger. It has been
      the
      > > guiding philosophical principle of my life, ever since the
      question
      > > of the meaning of life (Being, whatever) first came up for me at
      the
      > > age of thirteen, that, in life and through living, what we are up
      > > against is, fundamentally, a mystery. Maybe it sounds trite, at
      this
      > > point, to say that the mystery of life is not a problem to be
      solved,
      > > but a reality to be experienced, but, as trite as it may seem to
      > > some, it is, to me, a true statement, and, as a true statement, it
      > > does not preclude the possibility of a very precise articulation
      of
      > > the very essence of the problem, the question, the meaning, of
      life.
      > >
      > > Eros, as we find it in Plato, doesn't just mean physical, sexual,
      > > passion. It means, a fundamental "striving toward" the object, the
      > > essence, the goal, the root. We totally miss the depth of that
      > > striving when we level it off into an infinite task of progress
      > > toward an ultimately unattainable, asymptotic, limit of our
      knowledge
      > > and freedom.
      > >
      > > It is just another one of those many cases where we read our
      modern
      > > ways of thinking into what the Greeks said, and we THINK we
      > > understand them when we foist upon them terms of discourse that
      were
      > > utterly foreign to the Greek ways of thinking! Ha! The one thing
      that
      > > Heidegger does, which is so important, if only we take him
      seriously,
      > > is that he shakes loose our anachronistic readings of the Greeks.
      He
      > > takes us back to the very root of Greek philosophical concepts, by
      > > showing exactly how those very concepts were grounded in, and grew
      > > out of, the everyday language of the Greeks, a language that was
      far
      > > closer to a direct comprehension of the Being of beings than
      either
      > > Latin or English have turned out to be.
      > >
      > > It isn't just word magic, or folk etymology, either. The analyses
      are
      > > too detailed, too cogent, to be fabrications based upon mere
      words.
      > > At every step, Heidegger also shows the phenomenological bases of
      the
      > > geneses of the concepts he is analyzing. You won't get this if you
      > > don't work hard when you read Heidegger, and that means being
      willing
      > > to at least look at the Greek texts he brings into the
      conversation.
      > > And you don't have to master Greek to follow Heidegger either.
      Just a
      > > little bit of Greek CAN go a long way.
      > >
      > > If all of this IS mysticism, well then, SO BE IT! A lot of things
      get
      > > a bad rap these days. We think we are so superior! Just because we
      > > are modern! What a bunch of bull that is! I, for one, will not
      deny
      > > that all of THIS, the life in which I find myself involved, and
      the
      > > many and various situations in which I find myself constantly
      > > ensnared, not to mention the whole history that I have inherited,
      all
      > > of these things are all, taken together, when it comes right down
      to
      > > it, parts of a great mystery that I cannot pretend to have finally
      > > understood, or to have finally solved. We know the name of THAT
      kind
      > > of pretense! The pretense to having THE answer. It is sophistry!
      Pure
      > > and simple!
      > >
      > > The very first step, the real step, into the realm of the
      > > philosophical, requires, of us, that we keep firmly in mind, the
      > > constant fact, that what we actually know is NOT what really
      counts.
      > > It is what we DON'T know that counts. This is the Socratic state
      of
      > > mind; an IRONIC state of mind, of course! It goes along with the
      > > Socratic way of understanding, a way of understanding that is all
      > > about the questioning, NOT just the answers.
      > >
      > > But hey! That's me! I am a square peg, and I don't mind "being
      > > square" about THIS at all.
      > >
      > > Yeah, we can go ahead and "nutshell" Heidegger, and every other
      > > philosopher to boot. Why not? Obviously, we are indifferent to
      what
      > > they actually said, or why they said it. Our little schematism of
      > > convenient concepts, our way of pigeonholing philosphers, not to
      > > mention poets and novelists, is all that matters anyway. Why?
      Well,
      > > because we ARE the superior ones. Right? We ARE the ones who are
      now
      > > beyond the end, the culmination, of history, or, at the very
      least,
      > > we are almost THERE by now. Hold onto your hat! The eschaton is
      the
      > > day after tomorrow! Right?
      > >
      > > At the end of the day, having conquered everything, having
      dominated
      > > everything, what do we really understand? Nothing. What
      fundamental
      > > insights do we really have? None.
      > >
      > > Oh my! Was that a rant?
      > >
      > > Hb3g
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > **************
      > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
      > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
      >
      > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      Well, that was a pretty good rant Wil. Hb3g ... in the ... genuine and ... I consider ... ones that ... a lot of ... you have ... you have ... being ... you
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, that was a pretty good rant Wil.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        > Hb3g
        >
        > Yes, that was a rant, but there is nothing wrong with a rant or two
        in the
        > course of one's day, every now and then, assuming that it is
        genuine and
        > self-defining. I have mine too.
        >
        > Look, friend, I have read Heidegger and studied him since the 70s.
        I consider
        > him to be one of the 'must reads' of our tradition. My comments are
        ones that
        > are, as they say, "considered", that is to say life-long and after
        a lot of
        > soul searching along that highway of despair (to gloss Hegel) that
        you have
        > described so passionately.
        >
        > Yes, of course, Heidegger is a profound thinker. He is everything
        you have
        > said he is. But there is another moment of doing philosophy, of
        being
        > 'authentic' perhaps, when for whatever reason and at whatever time
        you say to yourself
        > "yes" or "no", and then again louder and more emphatically. There
        was just such
        > a moment for me with Heidegger when I all of a sudden felt as if in
        a
        > mausoleum -- or better, at a church service (a mass) when reading
        him. The
        > 'religiosity' that I glean in Heidegger, which he believes is
        poetry, is indicative of
        > both his conservative politics that 'hearkens' the missing and
        missed past
        > rather than pointing to the proud present and liberational future;
        as well as his
        > almost Hamlet-like inability to do much of anything at all but
        brood his
        > thought. That is my reading, but I would say that it is more than
        JUST my own
        > subjective interpretation.
        >
        > In any event, assuming the above to be understandable, the issue
        then comes
        > down to the ethical/political. In my view Heidegger's politics are
        entirely
        > aesthetic! Let's not forget that his attachment to Nazism (which
        lasted until the
        > allies entered Berlin) was FOR THE SAKE OF CULTURE. Like our
        own "culture
        > warriors" of the rightwing kind, his dread of loss (of homeland as
        destiny) lead
        > to the same bait and switch politics that has stuptified Junkers
        and bumpkins
        > alike, so well described by Thomas Frank in his 'What's the Matter
        with
        > Kansas". While Heidegger was certainly not a racist (or at least
        not an
        > anti-Semite), his thought does in fact lead one to an almost Jung-
        like insistence on a
        > 'Deutschland fur Deutsche' regimen which, when understood within
        the general
        > claims for a general philosophy, one which precludes "Russia and
        America", and
        > presumably everyone else but for the Greeks themselves (which are
        mostly fantasy
        > images for him), well --- the generality becomes apparent as all-
        too specific
        > "doesn't it" (as you like to put it). Heidegger's works prior to
        and during
        > the fascist period are interesting and thought provoking, but they
        are
        > inherently reactionary and intolerant. Heidegger wouldn't
        know "freedom" if it bit him
        > in the arse.
        >
        > That is always the problem when one regards "History" as a special
        unfolding,
        > as destiny or 'eschaton': the question becomes "whose history?".
        Whose
        > destiny? Oh yes, the "destiny of Being". Hiding behind the anti-
        humanism of
        > anthropomorphic transcendental signifiers. Well, that's an old
        game, although God is
        > usually the moniker given. But Heidegger is too modern for
        that. 'Only a an
        > empty transcendental signifier can save us now,' as he sort of
        said. So if there
        > is no God that can save us, it is the rememory, the alethea, of
        Being. Really?
        > Not the labor theory of value, or the scientific method, or global
        labor
        > movements, or impeachment hearings, or ....?
        >
        > Not for Heidegger! Too onical, I guess. It is like a aesthete who
        loves
        > Music, but who is bored with everything he hears. Love the ideal!
        But we all know
        > what absolutes are. They are an abyss. (If you stare too long at
        the abyss,
        > ....)
        >
        > And finally, and if I may be so bold as to suggest: an attachment
        to any
        > thinker is almost always a recipe for foolishness. I think a good
        dose of
        > Nietzsche is in order.
        >
        > Rant for rant.
        >
        > Yours,
        > Wil
        >
        > In a message dated 9/13/08 11:55:18 PM, hb3g@... writes:
        >
        >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Well...?
        > >
        > > Isn't truth a great mystery? What about un-truth? Isn't that an
        even
        > > greater mystery than truth? What about what we know? How do we
        know?
        > > Why do we know?
        > >
        > > Better yet, what about what we don't know? Something is revealed
        to
        > > us, and we call that truth. For, isn't truth, when it comes right
        > > down to it, what is revealed to actually be the case? So, we DO
        know
        > > truth. We know something. We know some things. That is for sure.
        And
        > > yet, there is always something more that is not revealed to us,
        > > something that remains hidden from us. How else do we account for
        the
        > > fact that truth is something that we must achieve? That truth
        isn't
        > > just handed to us, as if on a silver platter, when we are born?
        And
        > > yet, this very fact, that truth isn't just handed to us, that we
        have
        > > to achieve truth, brings us to the very mystery that truth is even
        > > concealed in the first place, that there can be any such thing as
        not
        > > knowing the truth of the matter, or, even knowing the truth of the
        > > matter wrongly, i.e., being in un-truth, as opposed to being in
        truth.
        > >
        > > What about THAT? As philosophers, what do we say about THAT? What
        do
        > > we DO about that? Do we just tack a label onto it? Do we dismiss
        it
        > > as "mysticism" and just move on to "more scientific" topics of
        > > discussion? Do we, as philosophers, simply assume, out of hand,
        that
        > > the fact that we do NOT know, counts for nothing at all?
        > >
        > > How un-Socratic that actually is! How un-Platonic it actually
        turns
        > > out to be! The whole point of the Socratic method, of many of the
        > > major dialogues of Plato, the "Socratic" ones as well as
        > > the "Platonic" ones, especially, the Meno, the Phaedo, the
        > > Theaetetus, the Sophist, the Parmenides, is, EXACTLY, this very
        > > mystery of our NOT always being in the truth.
        > >
        > > Heidegger has EXACTLY this very mystery in view. Where there is
        > > truth, there is also un-truth. Where there is knowing, there is
        also
        > > not knowing. Where there is Being, there is also NOT Being. It is
        as
        > > obvious to Heidegger, as it is to anyone else that it matters
        whether
        > > or not these recondite reflections upon the meaning of Being
        > > ultimately cash out into the realms of the existential and the
        > > political.
        > >
        > > But, like good old Socrates, and also Plato, and many other deep
        > > thinkers on the mystery of life, Boethius, even Kant, we are
        warned
        > > against the temptation to level off the ontological insight, to
        turn
        > > it into a series of trivial observations about our everyday Being
        in
        > > the world. What Heidegger, and Socrates, and Plato, are all
        talking
        > > about is something very obvious. It is SO obvious, in fact, that
        we
        > > totally miss it, and we altogether lack any insight into it at
        all.
        > >
        > > I was convinced of this long before I read Heidegger. It has been
        the
        > > guiding philosophical principle of my life, ever since the
        question
        > > of the meaning of life (Being, whatever) first came up for me at
        the
        > > age of thirteen, that, in life and through living, what we are up
        > > against is, fundamentally, a mystery. Maybe it sounds trite, at
        this
        > > point, to say that the mystery of life is not a problem to be
        solved,
        > > but a reality to be experienced, but, as trite as it may seem to
        > > some, it is, to me, a true statement, and, as a true statement, it
        > > does not preclude the possibility of a very precise articulation
        of
        > > the very essence of the problem, the question, the meaning, of
        life.
        > >
        > > Eros, as we find it in Plato, doesn't just mean physical, sexual,
        > > passion. It means, a fundamental "striving toward" the object, the
        > > essence, the goal, the root. We totally miss the depth of that
        > > striving when we level it off into an infinite task of progress
        > > toward an ultimately unattainable, asymptotic, limit of our
        knowledge
        > > and freedom.
        > >
        > > It is just another one of those many cases where we read our
        modern
        > > ways of thinking into what the Greeks said, and we THINK we
        > > understand them when we foist upon them terms of discourse that
        were
        > > utterly foreign to the Greek ways of thinking! Ha! The one thing
        that
        > > Heidegger does, which is so important, if only we take him
        seriously,
        > > is that he shakes loose our anachronistic readings of the Greeks.
        He
        > > takes us back to the very root of Greek philosophical concepts, by
        > > showing exactly how those very concepts were grounded in, and grew
        > > out of, the everyday language of the Greeks, a language that was
        far
        > > closer to a direct comprehension of the Being of beings than
        either
        > > Latin or English have turned out to be.
        > >
        > > It isn't just word magic, or folk etymology, either. The analyses
        are
        > > too detailed, too cogent, to be fabrications based upon mere
        words.
        > > At every step, Heidegger also shows the phenomenological bases of
        the
        > > geneses of the concepts he is analyzing. You won't get this if you
        > > don't work hard when you read Heidegger, and that means being
        willing
        > > to at least look at the Greek texts he brings into the
        conversation.
        > > And you don't have to master Greek to follow Heidegger either.
        Just a
        > > little bit of Greek CAN go a long way.
        > >
        > > If all of this IS mysticism, well then, SO BE IT! A lot of things
        get
        > > a bad rap these days. We think we are so superior! Just because we
        > > are modern! What a bunch of bull that is! I, for one, will not
        deny
        > > that all of THIS, the life in which I find myself involved, and
        the
        > > many and various situations in which I find myself constantly
        > > ensnared, not to mention the whole history that I have inherited,
        all
        > > of these things are all, taken together, when it comes right down
        to
        > > it, parts of a great mystery that I cannot pretend to have finally
        > > understood, or to have finally solved. We know the name of THAT
        kind
        > > of pretense! The pretense to having THE answer. It is sophistry!
        Pure
        > > and simple!
        > >
        > > The very first step, the real step, into the realm of the
        > > philosophical, requires, of us, that we keep firmly in mind, the
        > > constant fact, that what we actually know is NOT what really
        counts.
        > > It is what we DON'T know that counts. This is the Socratic state
        of
        > > mind; an IRONIC state of mind, of course! It goes along with the
        > > Socratic way of understanding, a way of understanding that is all
        > > about the questioning, NOT just the answers.
        > >
        > > But hey! That's me! I am a square peg, and I don't mind "being
        > > square" about THIS at all.
        > >
        > > Yeah, we can go ahead and "nutshell" Heidegger, and every other
        > > philosopher to boot. Why not? Obviously, we are indifferent to
        what
        > > they actually said, or why they said it. Our little schematism of
        > > convenient concepts, our way of pigeonholing philosphers, not to
        > > mention poets and novelists, is all that matters anyway. Why?
        Well,
        > > because we ARE the superior ones. Right? We ARE the ones who are
        now
        > > beyond the end, the culmination, of history, or, at the very
        least,
        > > we are almost THERE by now. Hold onto your hat! The eschaton is
        the
        > > day after tomorrow! Right?
        > >
        > > At the end of the day, having conquered everything, having
        dominated
        > > everything, what do we really understand? Nothing. What
        fundamental
        > > insights do we really have? None.
        > >
        > > Oh my! Was that a rant?
        > >
        > > Hb3g
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **************
        > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
        > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
        >
        > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.