Dear Richard and Gregory,
The book sounds great, and definitely much needed.
I have a question that I'm sure other readers of this list share,
and wonder if you wouldn't mind tipping your hand the slightest bit
to answer it. The question is this:
When did Heidegger write the infamous line about the "der
inneren Wahrheit und Groesse" of the National Socialist 'movement'?
And when did he insert the parenthetical 'explanation' ("naemlich
mit der Begegnung de planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des
neuzeitlichen Menschen")?
I know that the controversy here centers on the fact that
this qualification/'explanation' is in soft brackets, suggesting
that it was in the original 1935 lecture course (and I take it that
the infamous line itself is definitely from 1935), but that it's not
is student transcripts (?: what is the independent source for
checking these things? Heidegger's own 'manuscript'?) or for some
reason it looks like he added it later (to play down his commitment
in a sort of post facto rationalization), and thus should have
appeared in hard brackets. I put the question to you because you
sound like you have cleared it (and apparently other similar
confusions/dissimulations) up; and because I recently did a
double-take reading an article by Tom Rockmore ("Heidegger on
Technology and Democracy" in _Technology and the Politics of
Knowledge_, Indiana: 1995, Feenberg and Hannay, eds.) in which he
raises these issues several times (pp. 128-9, 130-1, 143n5) but is
not clear about whether scholarly consensus has been reached and if
so, what date has been given to the second line. (I leave them
untranslated in hopes that you might tell us how you've rendered
these no doubt controversial lines.)
Thanks for whatever light you can shed (on a rather poorly phrase
question).
Iain
>
> To: fellow Heidegger scholars
> From: Richard Polt and Gregory Fried
> Re: request for comments on possible _Intro. to Metaphysics_
> companion volume
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> We are in the process of producing a new translation of
> Heidegger's _Introduction to Metaphysics_ for Yale University
> Press. While the existing Ralph Manheim translation is
> admirably readable, our version will be closer to the German.
> We will also take into account textual discoveries made since
> the 1950s (thus, some parentheses in the 1953 text must be
> changed to brackets, since they contain additions made after
> the 1935 lecture course). Finally, we will follow the most
> important conventions for Heidegger translations as they have
> developed since Manheim's work (for example, we are rendering
> _das Seiende_ as "beings" rather than "essents").
>
> We are now developing a proposal for a companion volume to our
> translation, and we are writing to ask you for your thoughts
> on such a volume. We'd like to know whether you think such a
> book would be attractive, and what we might do to make it more
> useful to you as scholars and teachers. As we envision it,
> the volume would include:
>
> -- An overview of IM for readers who are new to Heidegger, in
> the context of Heidegger's thought as a whole
> -- A detailed index and glossary for our translation (we may
> not be able to include these in the translation itself for
> copyright reasons)
> -- Extended notes on passages that call for them
> -- Essays by a range of both established and younger scholars
> on issues in IM.
>
> The essays could treat something like the following range of
> topics, all primarily in relation to IM:
>
> -- Being and Nothing
> -- Being and appearance
> -- Polis and politics
> -- Logos and logic
> -- Physis, physics, and metaphysics
> -- Polemos
> -- Power
> -- Tragedy
> -- Heidegger's etymological and linguistic claims in relation
> to contemporary linguistics
>
> We would like to hear whether you would find such a book
> appealing. We'd also appreciate suggestions on how to enhance
> this project. We specifically want to know whether this
> volume, combined with a new, more accurate translation of the
> _Introduction_ itself, would be a text that you might assign
> in courses.
>
> We would be particularly grateful if those of you who would
> consider using these books in your teaching would give
> permission to be contacted by Yale as the press considers our
> proposal for the companion volume. If you are willing to take
> a look at the details of our proposal and give Yale your
> opinion of it, please let us know.
>
> As there are many who study and teach Heidegger but do not
> subscribe to a Heidegger list, we hope you will pass on this
> announcement to any non-wired colleagues whom it might
> interest.
>
> Your reactions and responses may either be posted to this list
> or sent to us directly:
>
> Richard Polt
> Dept. of Philosophy, Xavier University
> 3800 Victory Parkway
> Cincinnati, OH 45207-4443
> polt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Gregory Fried
> 110 Irving St.
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> cgfried@xxxxxx
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
The book sounds great, and definitely much needed.
I have a question that I'm sure other readers of this list share,
and wonder if you wouldn't mind tipping your hand the slightest bit
to answer it. The question is this:
When did Heidegger write the infamous line about the "der
inneren Wahrheit und Groesse" of the National Socialist 'movement'?
And when did he insert the parenthetical 'explanation' ("naemlich
mit der Begegnung de planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des
neuzeitlichen Menschen")?
I know that the controversy here centers on the fact that
this qualification/'explanation' is in soft brackets, suggesting
that it was in the original 1935 lecture course (and I take it that
the infamous line itself is definitely from 1935), but that it's not
is student transcripts (?: what is the independent source for
checking these things? Heidegger's own 'manuscript'?) or for some
reason it looks like he added it later (to play down his commitment
in a sort of post facto rationalization), and thus should have
appeared in hard brackets. I put the question to you because you
sound like you have cleared it (and apparently other similar
confusions/dissimulations) up; and because I recently did a
double-take reading an article by Tom Rockmore ("Heidegger on
Technology and Democracy" in _Technology and the Politics of
Knowledge_, Indiana: 1995, Feenberg and Hannay, eds.) in which he
raises these issues several times (pp. 128-9, 130-1, 143n5) but is
not clear about whether scholarly consensus has been reached and if
so, what date has been given to the second line. (I leave them
untranslated in hopes that you might tell us how you've rendered
these no doubt controversial lines.)
Thanks for whatever light you can shed (on a rather poorly phrase
question).
Iain
>
> To: fellow Heidegger scholars
> From: Richard Polt and Gregory Fried
> Re: request for comments on possible _Intro. to Metaphysics_
> companion volume
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> We are in the process of producing a new translation of
> Heidegger's _Introduction to Metaphysics_ for Yale University
> Press. While the existing Ralph Manheim translation is
> admirably readable, our version will be closer to the German.
> We will also take into account textual discoveries made since
> the 1950s (thus, some parentheses in the 1953 text must be
> changed to brackets, since they contain additions made after
> the 1935 lecture course). Finally, we will follow the most
> important conventions for Heidegger translations as they have
> developed since Manheim's work (for example, we are rendering
> _das Seiende_ as "beings" rather than "essents").
>
> We are now developing a proposal for a companion volume to our
> translation, and we are writing to ask you for your thoughts
> on such a volume. We'd like to know whether you think such a
> book would be attractive, and what we might do to make it more
> useful to you as scholars and teachers. As we envision it,
> the volume would include:
>
> -- An overview of IM for readers who are new to Heidegger, in
> the context of Heidegger's thought as a whole
> -- A detailed index and glossary for our translation (we may
> not be able to include these in the translation itself for
> copyright reasons)
> -- Extended notes on passages that call for them
> -- Essays by a range of both established and younger scholars
> on issues in IM.
>
> The essays could treat something like the following range of
> topics, all primarily in relation to IM:
>
> -- Being and Nothing
> -- Being and appearance
> -- Polis and politics
> -- Logos and logic
> -- Physis, physics, and metaphysics
> -- Polemos
> -- Power
> -- Tragedy
> -- Heidegger's etymological and linguistic claims in relation
> to contemporary linguistics
>
> We would like to hear whether you would find such a book
> appealing. We'd also appreciate suggestions on how to enhance
> this project. We specifically want to know whether this
> volume, combined with a new, more accurate translation of the
> _Introduction_ itself, would be a text that you might assign
> in courses.
>
> We would be particularly grateful if those of you who would
> consider using these books in your teaching would give
> permission to be contacted by Yale as the press considers our
> proposal for the companion volume. If you are willing to take
> a look at the details of our proposal and give Yale your
> opinion of it, please let us know.
>
> As there are many who study and teach Heidegger but do not
> subscribe to a Heidegger list, we hope you will pass on this
> announcement to any non-wired colleagues whom it might
> interest.
>
> Your reactions and responses may either be posted to this list
> or sent to us directly:
>
> Richard Polt
> Dept. of Philosophy, Xavier University
> 3800 Victory Parkway
> Cincinnati, OH 45207-4443
> polt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Gregory Fried
> 110 Irving St.
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> cgfried@xxxxxx
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---