Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:20:10 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one


Paul, I think one problem here is that Heidegger himself may not believe in dualities.

This does not address your suggestion that other currents in German intellectual life (and beyond) that contributed to Heidegger's thinking. For example, H. Dreyfus points out that Heidegger was quite familiar with the roots of analytic philosophy, even writing a review of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. On the other hand, it would clearly (in my view) be mistaken to reduce his thinking to either contributing to or reacting against these currents.

Bill Hord

> I thought that if he was rejecting the Enlightenment, that he would have to
> insist on something else, that which the Enlightenment is not, if one
> believes in dualities - logic/irrational, monarchy/democracy, order/chaos,
> aristocracy/equality.  I think sometimes that there can be a little chaos, a
> little order, and much that is inbetween.  So, Heidegger is critiquing the
> Enlightenment.  What is the starting point of this critique?
> I'm also aware that early Heidegger is not essentially political, that
> philosophers are often mistakenly connected with political movements, as
> politicians grab onto serious, hardcore academe in an attempt to lend
> respectabiltiy to what is often a disrespectable project.  What I think we
> could do, is to try to connect Heidegger to some of the other movements in
> German history and politics, Romanticism being one of those strands.
> Another is Liberalism, and yet another is Nationalism (Germany was one of
> the last West European countries to experience Nationalism, although the
> roots of Germanic or Teutonic culture - Teut becoming Deut - Deutschland -
> are very old).  I think Heidegger was of the radical right in that he
> rejected the idea of freedom of association, a fundamental liberal concept,
> and, to me, just a fundamental concept (except when one is to freely
> associate to wear silly white hats, burn crosses and hang...well, you
> know...).  Anyway, I agree, we've exhausted the N**** and should focus on
> some of the other strands in German culture (etc) we may have neglected.  Of
> course, the over-emphasis on the N**** is a subject in itself, and probably
> tells us a lot about a certain cultural emphasis/fascination which has not
> been properly examined/divulged hence its continuing facination.
> Why am I using these ******?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Malcolm Riddoch" <riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au>
> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one
> >
> > On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 02:45  AM, Paul Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > Is Heidegger rejecting the Enlightenment in favour of a subjective,
> > > Utopian,
> > > irrational, instinctual, pre-logical notion of being?
> >
> > I'd say ... definitely not. We're starting here in section 1 with what
> > will become an ontology of being, with a phenomenological method.
> > Heidegger respects logic, rejects ir/rationality as a subjective
> > dualism, and bases his entire critique of traditional philosophy on a
> > 'deconstruction' of the notion of subjectivity.
> >
> > In part this will be a critique of the Enlightenment but certainly not
> > a rejection of it, more a re-interpretation and re-grounding of its
> > conceptuality and presuppositions.
> >
> > As an ontology it isn't directly concerned with politics and
> > anti-liberalism, and chronologically it comes before his Nazi
> > commitments. I think it sets up his later confrontation with Nazism in
> > terms of the basic concepts he uses to critique machination and the
> > will to order, while his 'anti-liberal' tendencies are rather complex
> > and have nothing to do with biologism and everything to do with a
> > rather strange utopian dream about the possibility of an awakening of
> > humanity to the world historical truth of being. What I'd call his
> > 'Star Trek' vision. Or is that 'Starship Troopers'? Anyone up for yet
> > another new world order?
> >
> > However, I think we can read BT without recourse to this political
> > problem, and more in terms of a logical 'pre-empirical' investigation
> > into the phenomenon of being. It's about the origins of human
> > understanding in general, irrespective of whether that understanding is
> > liberal or fascist. So shall we stick with the question of being qua
> > being, or go off on a Nazi tangent?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Malcolm
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---