Michael Harrawood wrote:
"So, now, doesn't the ready-to-hand have to be, by definition, "ready" for
all hands? I wonder whether it makes sense to elevate Heidegger in this
context as an opponent of consensus. There is a debate about whether
authenticity in Heidegger throws Dasein back onto itself or whether it is
impossible without praxis and the polis. But, I don't think Heidegger
would ever argue that what begins in Kant as transcendence can't
"transcend" unless it does so for everybody. It's everybody's hammer --
that's why its the poet who can utter the words that found the state;
that's why it has to be a painting of the peasant's shoes and not the
shoes themselves. Have I got this right?"
Well, first off, though I don't know if this is in Heidegger, I see no
reason whatever why the "ready to hant" must mean "ready for all hands".
I think that is part of the problem of the workshop example: it is good,
as far as it goes. Which may not be very far at all. Also in the workshop
are to be found obscure devices of specific purposes that only a skilled
watchmaker, for example, can put to youse. One must "have the hands to
use such a devise", so to speak. Secondly: what do we make of the
totalization inherent in the *every*? The "every" of everydayness...is
there really any such "every", ever?
How does this relate to "consensus" (a word which makes me shudder)?
_______________________________________________________________
The survivors who spoke of the "electricity", the "lights", the
"metal tables" and the "needles" had a shrieking question mark
in their eyes that wasn't answered by what what we were reading
in the growing volume of material that was being published.
--excerpt from The Stone Angels survivors' journal
Vol. 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
"So, now, doesn't the ready-to-hand have to be, by definition, "ready" for
all hands? I wonder whether it makes sense to elevate Heidegger in this
context as an opponent of consensus. There is a debate about whether
authenticity in Heidegger throws Dasein back onto itself or whether it is
impossible without praxis and the polis. But, I don't think Heidegger
would ever argue that what begins in Kant as transcendence can't
"transcend" unless it does so for everybody. It's everybody's hammer --
that's why its the poet who can utter the words that found the state;
that's why it has to be a painting of the peasant's shoes and not the
shoes themselves. Have I got this right?"
Well, first off, though I don't know if this is in Heidegger, I see no
reason whatever why the "ready to hant" must mean "ready for all hands".
I think that is part of the problem of the workshop example: it is good,
as far as it goes. Which may not be very far at all. Also in the workshop
are to be found obscure devices of specific purposes that only a skilled
watchmaker, for example, can put to youse. One must "have the hands to
use such a devise", so to speak. Secondly: what do we make of the
totalization inherent in the *every*? The "every" of everydayness...is
there really any such "every", ever?
How does this relate to "consensus" (a word which makes me shudder)?
_______________________________________________________________
The survivors who spoke of the "electricity", the "lights", the
"metal tables" and the "needles" had a shrieking question mark
in their eyes that wasn't answered by what what we were reading
in the growing volume of material that was being published.
--excerpt from The Stone Angels survivors' journal
Vol. 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---