Re: What Calls for Thinking

> Date: 13 Feb 96 21:53:44 EST
> From: robert scheetz <76550.1064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger list <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: What Calls for Thinking
> Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> 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 ---
>
>
Karl Barth, a reader of Heidegger, suggests that speculation is
simply the abstract form of mythology. From this it would seem to
follow that if you are involved in
speculation then you are thinking mythologically.

I don't know if this is helpful but if it is I could dig out some
extended quotes if you wished.

Jonathan Crowther


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Partial thread listing: