Re: Look

as tom and maybe some others know, i am a raging levinasiod, finding heidegger
to be fundamentally creepy.

that said, a response:

>In any event: the question of authenticity and the "they": Why death? Why
>not love? The alienated structure of fallen Dasein's Being ostensibly
>requires death to pull it out of the they, perhaps with a certain shock.
>I think, however, that there is also a basic possibility of
>"authenticity in love", where the "in order to's" and "for the sake
>of which's" lead, or can lead, in a certain kind of thinking
>(resolute or otherwise) into a "return" (fort/da?) wherein
>this world of concerns is authenticated through the meaning of love. I
>mean this on an *existential* level, and not a psychoanalytic one, at
>least as concerns the "unconscious", which might not have anything to say
>about this but is also not obviated here.

>*temporality* in certain ways. Anxiety and death *do* go together, but
>*death* is not the one and only royal road to authenticity. Which is not
>to say, as per Brown, "Life Against Death" (which of course is the rule
>of neither Life nor Death, but of Polemos). And what of love? What goes
>with love as anxiety goes with death? Joy, perhaps?

it seems that death is the obvious choice for precisely the reason that heidegg
er gives: that it individualizes each dasein absolutely. love , by
definition, depends upon a relationship between (at least) two people.
throughtout _bombastic_and_tyrannical_, heidegger seems to always be looking
for the perfect relationship of self-reflection, looking for a way for dasein
to relate to itself as itself through itself. therefore, love would obviously
not be appropriate because it depends upon another person.

if you want a heideggarean take on love, you should maybe check out raoul
vaneigem's _revolution of everyday life_. i will quote it on this list later,
but he basically states something like the other should be loved because i, as
a selfish being, desire them completely. i find this analysis to be so
grotesque it makes me quiver.

of course, tom, you know that the centerpiece of levinas' works is the erotic
relationship which produces jouissance, enjoyment, in the son.

>
>*takes care of her affairs* with greater sureness, efficiency, and these
>affairs are, ostensibly, the more important ones, affairs of the heart
>and personal pain, loss in friendship, etc. She also gets an ulcer, which
>puts an end to it (on the show), but that's irrelevant, perhaps. Death
>puts in a weight, a certain urgency, a possibility, which is part of
>things. We can't guess that it will teach her one thing about love, nor
>can we imagine that love wouldn't also teach in such a way. Nor can we
>imagine that we can or should do without one or the other. Though
>Heidegger obviously thinks so.

in time and the other, levinas, almost mocking heidegger, makes a similar point
: that the man facing the firing squad does not face an overwhelming anxiety.
rather, he attends to his material needs, straightening his back and requesting
a cigarette.

heidegger = nietzsche - [pleasure + humor]

yours faithfully,
mitch


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Folow-ups
  • Re: Look
    • From: Tom Blancato
  • Partial thread listing: