>There seem to be two issues raised in your post. One, whether there is a
>connection between the discussion of technology and critique of
>functionalist language. This seems to be an easy yes. Heidegger's
>critique of modern language theories is that they are merely technical.
>Thus the shortcomings of a merely technical understanding of technology
>also apply to the technical understanding of language.
>
>The second, albeit related, point is whether Heidegger's writing style
>takes account of the very critique he raises, i.e., whether his writing
>becomes "poetic". This is trickier. Certainly his later writings are
>different than his works around the time of Being and Time, which are
>characterized by a technically adroit precision of language, laying out of
>terms, defining, and the like. In other words, the methods of logical
>positivism applied to a phenomenon resistant to these methods. One could
>see his later style as a means to address this disjunction inherent in
>Being and Time.
>
>Two factors complicate such a "progressive" development. One is whether
>another poetic language is really possible. The second is whether
>Heidegger really uses it, or rather retains a distinction between poetry
>and philosophy. While Heidegger maintained that another language was
>possible, his own writing style is not poetic, in the sense of which you
>use the term ("constructing realities"), but thoughtful. (Heidegger can
>grind down the distinction between poetry and thinking only by making them
>both responsive to Being, which makes poetry no longer a making or
>creating.) Thoughtful thinking slowly circles around essential words, to
>pick apart and uncover the varieties of meaning, discover forgotten
>meanings, and chart genealogical connections among the changes. The best
>example is "The Principle of Reason," in which Heidegger continually works
>on Leibniz's little principle for about 200 pages, a Holzweg pattern to
>reading, checking out paths that often turn into dead ends, but it is
>undertaking the path itself that is important. By Heidegger's own
>insistence, this way-taking is preparatory thinking: it is not poetic
>thinking itself. Nonetheless, this form of thinking is not technical in
>the sense in which he uses the term.
>
>Chris
>
(my english is not so good: nevertheless...)
I'm not so sure. There is any "poetics" (don't forget "poetic" is not
something "beautiful" to read, it is first of all "poyetic"!) in Being and
Time? I'm not so sure.
There is any "technically adroit precision of language" in his later
writings? I'm not so sure (not at all!). You can take experience of that by
following one Heidegger's word all over his writings since Being and Time to
Time and Being: you'll never find one word in two different opposite sense!
(excepted, in my opinion, 2 words: Zeit + Raum).
>In other words, the methods of logical positivism applied to a phenomenon
>resistant to these methods.
Do you really see this kind of method in Being and Time? If yes, please
consider it is exaclty the same until the end of his life! It means that the
"logical positivism" - in your perspective - is able to reach the poetic top
of his later writings?
Certainly you answer: no, Heidegger didn't use always the same method.
How can I demonstrate my belief of the contrary? I cannot.
What I know is that all of us we are used to read Being and Time in a
certain way (with the same attitude we use with the "real philosophers"); as
well as someone (who? or what?) decided the right way to read his later
writings must be different, something like an undetermined "poetic inspiration".
The first way we grant to Being and Time is hard and tiring. What could it
happen if we collect our energies to maintain the same way of reading with
later Heidegger's writings? My opinion: this is the only way to walk with
Haidegger to "Ereignis".
Ciao!
Antonio Tombolini
Italia.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>connection between the discussion of technology and critique of
>functionalist language. This seems to be an easy yes. Heidegger's
>critique of modern language theories is that they are merely technical.
>Thus the shortcomings of a merely technical understanding of technology
>also apply to the technical understanding of language.
>
>The second, albeit related, point is whether Heidegger's writing style
>takes account of the very critique he raises, i.e., whether his writing
>becomes "poetic". This is trickier. Certainly his later writings are
>different than his works around the time of Being and Time, which are
>characterized by a technically adroit precision of language, laying out of
>terms, defining, and the like. In other words, the methods of logical
>positivism applied to a phenomenon resistant to these methods. One could
>see his later style as a means to address this disjunction inherent in
>Being and Time.
>
>Two factors complicate such a "progressive" development. One is whether
>another poetic language is really possible. The second is whether
>Heidegger really uses it, or rather retains a distinction between poetry
>and philosophy. While Heidegger maintained that another language was
>possible, his own writing style is not poetic, in the sense of which you
>use the term ("constructing realities"), but thoughtful. (Heidegger can
>grind down the distinction between poetry and thinking only by making them
>both responsive to Being, which makes poetry no longer a making or
>creating.) Thoughtful thinking slowly circles around essential words, to
>pick apart and uncover the varieties of meaning, discover forgotten
>meanings, and chart genealogical connections among the changes. The best
>example is "The Principle of Reason," in which Heidegger continually works
>on Leibniz's little principle for about 200 pages, a Holzweg pattern to
>reading, checking out paths that often turn into dead ends, but it is
>undertaking the path itself that is important. By Heidegger's own
>insistence, this way-taking is preparatory thinking: it is not poetic
>thinking itself. Nonetheless, this form of thinking is not technical in
>the sense in which he uses the term.
>
>Chris
>
(my english is not so good: nevertheless...)
I'm not so sure. There is any "poetics" (don't forget "poetic" is not
something "beautiful" to read, it is first of all "poyetic"!) in Being and
Time? I'm not so sure.
There is any "technically adroit precision of language" in his later
writings? I'm not so sure (not at all!). You can take experience of that by
following one Heidegger's word all over his writings since Being and Time to
Time and Being: you'll never find one word in two different opposite sense!
(excepted, in my opinion, 2 words: Zeit + Raum).
>In other words, the methods of logical positivism applied to a phenomenon
>resistant to these methods.
Do you really see this kind of method in Being and Time? If yes, please
consider it is exaclty the same until the end of his life! It means that the
"logical positivism" - in your perspective - is able to reach the poetic top
of his later writings?
Certainly you answer: no, Heidegger didn't use always the same method.
How can I demonstrate my belief of the contrary? I cannot.
What I know is that all of us we are used to read Being and Time in a
certain way (with the same attitude we use with the "real philosophers"); as
well as someone (who? or what?) decided the right way to read his later
writings must be different, something like an undetermined "poetic inspiration".
The first way we grant to Being and Time is hard and tiring. What could it
happen if we collect our energies to maintain the same way of reading with
later Heidegger's writings? My opinion: this is the only way to walk with
Haidegger to "Ereignis".
Ciao!
Antonio Tombolini
Italia.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---