On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 dralfonso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Christopher Pound wrote: > > > > That is, Heidegger
> > > could have replaced anxiety with, say, love (I don't know if he
could have > > > but this is a hypothetical example) but ... > > > > If I
want to talk about death, my speaking will have been occasioned > > from
the proper pathos, because pathos is the ground of logos. > > Love gives
me no _reason_ to speak of (my own) death. > > Pathos is the ground of
logos; and isn't love the ground of pathos? Would > love not be the only
'reason' to speak authentically of one's > ownmost death: because in love
I want to share everything with [an]Other, > but my own death I cannot
share. I realize the possibility of > impossibility through/in love.
Giving voice to this, which is the > very pathos of pathos, is a
declaration of love, the "till death do us > part." > > Still lovers cry
"Not even death will part us." And this too attests to > the pathos of
love: that the measure of love be loss. > > Sorry if I am missing your
point to make my own. > > rita > > > --- from list
heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- > Rita, Your comments suggest to
me the commonplace distinction between enfatuation (FALLING in love!) and
loving. Maybe Heidegger makes a stab at this in the discussion of authentic
being-with-others, authentic solicitude, genuine care). In falling in
love, I lose myself in the welter of transient emotions intentionally
formed around the other (the object of love). On the contrary, in
authentic love death and decay remain, as you say, the prospect of loss
that measures or surrounds our love. We remain our own selves. It is the
kind of love that calls us back to our precious sameness as distinct,
finite beings...But now I am becoming untypically mushy.
Perhaps there is a place for love in Heidegger (besides his feelings for
HA).
BRN
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Christopher Pound wrote: > > > > That is, Heidegger
> > > could have replaced anxiety with, say, love (I don't know if he
could have > > > but this is a hypothetical example) but ... > > > > If I
want to talk about death, my speaking will have been occasioned > > from
the proper pathos, because pathos is the ground of logos. > > Love gives
me no _reason_ to speak of (my own) death. > > Pathos is the ground of
logos; and isn't love the ground of pathos? Would > love not be the only
'reason' to speak authentically of one's > ownmost death: because in love
I want to share everything with [an]Other, > but my own death I cannot
share. I realize the possibility of > impossibility through/in love.
Giving voice to this, which is the > very pathos of pathos, is a
declaration of love, the "till death do us > part." > > Still lovers cry
"Not even death will part us." And this too attests to > the pathos of
love: that the measure of love be loss. > > Sorry if I am missing your
point to make my own. > > rita > > > --- from list
heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- > Rita, Your comments suggest to
me the commonplace distinction between enfatuation (FALLING in love!) and
loving. Maybe Heidegger makes a stab at this in the discussion of authentic
being-with-others, authentic solicitude, genuine care). In falling in
love, I lose myself in the welter of transient emotions intentionally
formed around the other (the object of love). On the contrary, in
authentic love death and decay remain, as you say, the prospect of loss
that measures or surrounds our love. We remain our own selves. It is the
kind of love that calls us back to our precious sameness as distinct,
finite beings...But now I am becoming untypically mushy.
Perhaps there is a place for love in Heidegger (besides his feelings for
HA).
BRN
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---