>Again, is this strong enough? The point that Lacoue-Labarthe makes so
>forcefully is that when Heidegger threw the weight of his 'thinking of
>Being' behind the Nazis, that move constituted a fundamental 'betrayal' of
>his own thought; i.e., it is precsiely in this moment that he *did*
>'abandon' the Question of Being (precisely by answering it definitively, as
>though it could be so answered, as though historicity could be overcome,
>Being reinstated). Here the thought exceeds the man (though in a
>problematic sense which ust be carefully elaborated, for there is no
>absolute line between thinker and thought, even when the thinker stops
>thinking...).
Iain,
When I said you adhered to the "Derridean" school of reading Heidegger's
political engagement, I knew full well that Derrida owes much of his
analysis to the thinking of Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy, but
"Lacoue-Labarthean" is sorta ugly you know. I take your positive
endorsement of his thesis to be a type of adherence, even if you disagree
with parts of it. Certainly you are agreeing with LL's major premise. I
don't consider noting a fundamental similarity "domesticating" the Other.
That notwithstanding, we are getting closer to the basic point at which I
disagree with you (and not coincidentally, PLL, Schuermann, etc). I see
TWO steps in the question of being; the question and the answer. The point
of the destruction of the tradition is to open up the question of being as
a question so that we can repeat the question as a new beginning. When the
question is asked authentically, however, being answers, it gives itself,
it gives itself as its time, as its history. In short, I am saying that
the answer is an "epoch" (using Schuermann's term) of being. I believe
Heidegger means that it is possible to give an answer to the question of
being that is not THE answer to the question of being (thus fulfilling your
requirement that non-metaphysical thinking gives up the hope for an
exhaustive description of being), but that an answer is necessary. The
answer is the "there" of being, the world. Being does not exist except as
a "there."
I have found that some, Nancy in particular (not necessarily you, although
the statements above lead me to believe you could subscribe to this as
well), desire to hold onto the question as a question, to try to live in
that null state of being as possibility, to not give an answer at all.
They claim this is the authentic thought of Heidegger which exceeds his
nostalgia for an answer. One, I do not think this is Heidegger. Two, I
think Heidegger is right in thinking that the question gives an answer (or
better, that being gives an answer when freed to its possibilities by
questioning). If, however, one reads Nancy and PLL as implying that an
answer can only be metaphysics (something I don't think Heidegger
believed), and that an answer is necessary, that means that being can only
be -- Hegelian spirit. Deep, huh?
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________
We will stand nowhere, where the flamethrower has not completed through
annihilation the great cleansing. - Ernst Juenger
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>forcefully is that when Heidegger threw the weight of his 'thinking of
>Being' behind the Nazis, that move constituted a fundamental 'betrayal' of
>his own thought; i.e., it is precsiely in this moment that he *did*
>'abandon' the Question of Being (precisely by answering it definitively, as
>though it could be so answered, as though historicity could be overcome,
>Being reinstated). Here the thought exceeds the man (though in a
>problematic sense which ust be carefully elaborated, for there is no
>absolute line between thinker and thought, even when the thinker stops
>thinking...).
Iain,
When I said you adhered to the "Derridean" school of reading Heidegger's
political engagement, I knew full well that Derrida owes much of his
analysis to the thinking of Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy, but
"Lacoue-Labarthean" is sorta ugly you know. I take your positive
endorsement of his thesis to be a type of adherence, even if you disagree
with parts of it. Certainly you are agreeing with LL's major premise. I
don't consider noting a fundamental similarity "domesticating" the Other.
That notwithstanding, we are getting closer to the basic point at which I
disagree with you (and not coincidentally, PLL, Schuermann, etc). I see
TWO steps in the question of being; the question and the answer. The point
of the destruction of the tradition is to open up the question of being as
a question so that we can repeat the question as a new beginning. When the
question is asked authentically, however, being answers, it gives itself,
it gives itself as its time, as its history. In short, I am saying that
the answer is an "epoch" (using Schuermann's term) of being. I believe
Heidegger means that it is possible to give an answer to the question of
being that is not THE answer to the question of being (thus fulfilling your
requirement that non-metaphysical thinking gives up the hope for an
exhaustive description of being), but that an answer is necessary. The
answer is the "there" of being, the world. Being does not exist except as
a "there."
I have found that some, Nancy in particular (not necessarily you, although
the statements above lead me to believe you could subscribe to this as
well), desire to hold onto the question as a question, to try to live in
that null state of being as possibility, to not give an answer at all.
They claim this is the authentic thought of Heidegger which exceeds his
nostalgia for an answer. One, I do not think this is Heidegger. Two, I
think Heidegger is right in thinking that the question gives an answer (or
better, that being gives an answer when freed to its possibilities by
questioning). If, however, one reads Nancy and PLL as implying that an
answer can only be metaphysics (something I don't think Heidegger
believed), and that an answer is necessary, that means that being can only
be -- Hegelian spirit. Deep, huh?
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________
We will stand nowhere, where the flamethrower has not completed through
annihilation the great cleansing. - Ernst Juenger
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---