Jacob
>One of the interesting points is that around the time H. begins to
>re-orientate himself in relation to the B & T project (say 1928/9) - he
>actually beings to use again vocabulary which he had first used in 1918/9
>and then not used since. In this sense - it is actually a re-turn: which,
>of course, begs the question of whether his early philosophy can be named
>'immature thinking'.
Heidegger apparently was against the publication of most of his 1920's
lectures, referring to them as his 'immature' period, but point taken. And
what is the 1918/9 work that you refer to and how do its terms relate to
the re-orientation of B&T?
>In addition I'm not sure that the influence of Kant is a key one in these
>early years - or even in drafting much of B & T.
Yes, there is a remarkable transformation in his writing style with B&T
seeming to just suddenly appear from nowhere as a thoroughly Kantian
transcendental ontology, but if Heidegger's methodological grounds are
primarily Husserlian phenomenology then surely Kant's influence cannot be
discounted from the early 1920's on? (Given that you accept Husserl is
himself thoroughly Kantian of course)
As for the turn, 'Origin of the work of art' (c.1935?) also seems like an
important work, where the philosophical relation to being is thought as
poesis, rather than mere logical assertion or judgement. But then these
latter were already secondary to truth as unconcealment in B&T. So is
poesis a different way of approaching the truth of unconcealment than that
given in existential phenomenology? And could we call this a difference of
style?
H's Kantian analytic is descriptive, and resolves (reduces?) Dasein into a
number of 'equiprimordial' structures. This analytic style took a
'conceptual' approach to truth as unconcealment in which the meaning of
Being is what is sought after and where:
"'Being' has been presupposed in all ontology up till now, but not as a
concept at one's disposal - not as the sort of thing we are seeking" (B&T,
p. 27).
H's later style is a poetic one, as is the relation outlined in
_Gelassenheit_ or releasement to openness etc., which seems to me to forgo
the attempt to grasp being as a concept. 'Basic concepts' (c. 1941) even
warns against approaching the question of being in terms of an abstract
concept of being.
So where does the early 1918/9 writing fit in here?
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>One of the interesting points is that around the time H. begins to
>re-orientate himself in relation to the B & T project (say 1928/9) - he
>actually beings to use again vocabulary which he had first used in 1918/9
>and then not used since. In this sense - it is actually a re-turn: which,
>of course, begs the question of whether his early philosophy can be named
>'immature thinking'.
Heidegger apparently was against the publication of most of his 1920's
lectures, referring to them as his 'immature' period, but point taken. And
what is the 1918/9 work that you refer to and how do its terms relate to
the re-orientation of B&T?
>In addition I'm not sure that the influence of Kant is a key one in these
>early years - or even in drafting much of B & T.
Yes, there is a remarkable transformation in his writing style with B&T
seeming to just suddenly appear from nowhere as a thoroughly Kantian
transcendental ontology, but if Heidegger's methodological grounds are
primarily Husserlian phenomenology then surely Kant's influence cannot be
discounted from the early 1920's on? (Given that you accept Husserl is
himself thoroughly Kantian of course)
As for the turn, 'Origin of the work of art' (c.1935?) also seems like an
important work, where the philosophical relation to being is thought as
poesis, rather than mere logical assertion or judgement. But then these
latter were already secondary to truth as unconcealment in B&T. So is
poesis a different way of approaching the truth of unconcealment than that
given in existential phenomenology? And could we call this a difference of
style?
H's Kantian analytic is descriptive, and resolves (reduces?) Dasein into a
number of 'equiprimordial' structures. This analytic style took a
'conceptual' approach to truth as unconcealment in which the meaning of
Being is what is sought after and where:
"'Being' has been presupposed in all ontology up till now, but not as a
concept at one's disposal - not as the sort of thing we are seeking" (B&T,
p. 27).
H's later style is a poetic one, as is the relation outlined in
_Gelassenheit_ or releasement to openness etc., which seems to me to forgo
the attempt to grasp being as a concept. 'Basic concepts' (c. 1941) even
warns against approaching the question of being in terms of an abstract
concept of being.
So where does the early 1918/9 writing fit in here?
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---