>> by metaphysics I follow the earlier Heidegger: metaphysics is
>>the questioning of being. Heidegger never abandoned that. Anyway, I
>>still maintain that Heidegger never abandoned metaphysics as you
>>understand it because he never held to it in the first place (again, with
>>the caveat "at least after 1919").
>>
>>Chris
>I guess we'll agree to disagree on what Heidegger meant by "metaphysics"
>for now (my definition was drawn from the fourth Nietzsche volume, circa
>1940)...
Actually, we do not really disagree so much as to what Heidegger meant by
metaphysics. I am quite aware of what metaphysics meant to Heidegger after
about 1938 or so. But I also know it is not the same (or held in the same
regard) as what it was earlier. One can see this development interestingly
enough on about 2 pages of the Introduction to Metaphysics. In the
original text from 1935, he says, "Accordingly, the question to which we
have given first rank, 'Why are there beings rather than nothing?' is the
fundamental question of metaphysics. Metaphysics is a name for the pivotal
point and core of all philosophy."(IM, 17) Metaphysics is the inquiry into
being as such. One can tell from the preceding pages of IM that Heidegger
regards this questioning positively. Immediately after the sentences I
cited, however, Heidegger inserts a parenthetical remark, which, as the
preface indicates, was added at a later time. The gist of this remark is
that metaphysics is dominated by "physics" and is precisely the covering
over of being as being, the forgetfulness of being which culminates in the
dominance of technology and nihilism. This parenthetical insertion is
Heidegger's later understanding of metaphysics.
As you have probably guessed, I do not think this change represents a
fundamental change of Heidegger's task.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________
We will stand nowhere, where the flamethrower has not completed through
annihilation the great cleansing. - Ernst Juenger
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>the questioning of being. Heidegger never abandoned that. Anyway, I
>>still maintain that Heidegger never abandoned metaphysics as you
>>understand it because he never held to it in the first place (again, with
>>the caveat "at least after 1919").
>>
>>Chris
>I guess we'll agree to disagree on what Heidegger meant by "metaphysics"
>for now (my definition was drawn from the fourth Nietzsche volume, circa
>1940)...
Actually, we do not really disagree so much as to what Heidegger meant by
metaphysics. I am quite aware of what metaphysics meant to Heidegger after
about 1938 or so. But I also know it is not the same (or held in the same
regard) as what it was earlier. One can see this development interestingly
enough on about 2 pages of the Introduction to Metaphysics. In the
original text from 1935, he says, "Accordingly, the question to which we
have given first rank, 'Why are there beings rather than nothing?' is the
fundamental question of metaphysics. Metaphysics is a name for the pivotal
point and core of all philosophy."(IM, 17) Metaphysics is the inquiry into
being as such. One can tell from the preceding pages of IM that Heidegger
regards this questioning positively. Immediately after the sentences I
cited, however, Heidegger inserts a parenthetical remark, which, as the
preface indicates, was added at a later time. The gist of this remark is
that metaphysics is dominated by "physics" and is precisely the covering
over of being as being, the forgetfulness of being which culminates in the
dominance of technology and nihilism. This parenthetical insertion is
Heidegger's later understanding of metaphysics.
As you have probably guessed, I do not think this change represents a
fundamental change of Heidegger's task.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________
We will stand nowhere, where the flamethrower has not completed through
annihilation the great cleansing. - Ernst Juenger
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---