Re: What Calls for Thinking

Dotson:

> In Heidegger's essay, What Calls For Thinking, he discusses
>myth. He talks about the Greek myth of the Mnemosyne. Is Heidegger
>trying to tell us that mythical thinking is something we need to be
>doing more of?



This is a point with me too. In his resumen of Western thinking
at the beginning of B&T, H disparages Cassirer's philosophy of
symbolic forms as a superficial neo-Kantianism, then proceeds
with an exposition, "fundamental ontology", that requires to
be read as myth. So if it wasn't "primordial" for EC, how
is it so for H? Is it the obvious difference: EC's is critique,
and H's, mythopoiesis? If so this would have us vis a vis Heidegger
(i.e. explication) paralleling Cassirer...do we have to
actually do what H does (i.e. recurr to the same style of
delphic discourse)to grasp his meaning?



--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Folow-ups
  • Re: What Calls for Thinking
    • From: Iain Thomson
  • Partial thread listing: