From: Laurence Paul Hemming[SMTP:llh21@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 April 1996 09:07
<<At the risk of seeming over-critical of your approach, I might
tentatively suggest that you appear to have fallen victim to the line of
"Heidegger scholarship" currently being pursued by John van Buren and
Theodore Kisiel - that the "non-Sein und Zeit" period - in other words
bracketing out say 1924-1930 - is the period into which he turned and from
which he returned - that the so-called "Kriegsnotsemester" (1919) with its
tantalising use of the word "das Ereignis" is more *really* Heidegger than
Sein und Zeit, and that everything then returns to this after the lecture
Vom Wesen der Wahrheit. (This is a slight parody, but only just).>>
I wonder if you have actually read carefully the work of Kisiel and van
Buren. In particular Kisiel's position on H. is extraordinarily more
complex than you here given credit for. It isn't a matter of defining the
'real' Heidegger - it's a matter of tracing the continuities and
discontinuities in his thought. The pathways essayed, and then abandoned,
the influences taken up and then critiqued etc. This is a complex process
but one which has brought vastly more to light about the roots of B & T
than your reductive parody might lead people to think.
Van Buren uses some of the conclusions of his historical research into this
earlier period to, in effect, critique some aspects of H's later thought.
Caputo does a similar thing. You may not agree with their conclusions - but
substantive debate rather than parody would perhaps be a more constructive
engagement.
Kisiel, as far as I have seen, is different again. He explains in detail
H's changing tacks in a way that had not so clearly been done publicly
either by Heideggger himself, or his authorised interpreters (eg Poggler),
or his students (eg Arendt). Out of his research has come extraordinarily
fruitful approaches for future work. But he does not (except marginally)
criticise Heidegger - his work is explanatory and descriptive for the most
part. So, it's hard to see how you can call his work some kind of search
for a 'real' Heidegger as if it was a piece of depth psychology. It's
simply making clear in ways that were not widely known before, the thinking
of the earlier Heidegger - and the ways in which this can be seen to ground
his latter thought paths, points of continuity and discontinuity - as I
already wrote.
Is your point that any sort of uncovering of those parts of H's work that
are not widely known is a falling away from the true path? For, of course
many of H's colleagues and students knew of the existence of these lectures
and texts and of their importance and wrote so. In addition later
interpreters of Heidegger, such as Krell, have themselves delved into this
material in an effort to understand better what H's path of thinking was.
I wonder why you are so clear that this thoughtful research is not helpful?
[text deleted - the rest of your post is an expansion of this point - which
I question]
<<In your last post replying to mine you commented "I'm prepared to go
along with all of that" - the question here is "just in what did that
preparation consist".>>
I'm not sure what you mean here - I'd be grateful if you could be a little
more expansive.
Cheers,
Jacob Knee
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Sent: 28 April 1996 09:07
<<At the risk of seeming over-critical of your approach, I might
tentatively suggest that you appear to have fallen victim to the line of
"Heidegger scholarship" currently being pursued by John van Buren and
Theodore Kisiel - that the "non-Sein und Zeit" period - in other words
bracketing out say 1924-1930 - is the period into which he turned and from
which he returned - that the so-called "Kriegsnotsemester" (1919) with its
tantalising use of the word "das Ereignis" is more *really* Heidegger than
Sein und Zeit, and that everything then returns to this after the lecture
Vom Wesen der Wahrheit. (This is a slight parody, but only just).>>
I wonder if you have actually read carefully the work of Kisiel and van
Buren. In particular Kisiel's position on H. is extraordinarily more
complex than you here given credit for. It isn't a matter of defining the
'real' Heidegger - it's a matter of tracing the continuities and
discontinuities in his thought. The pathways essayed, and then abandoned,
the influences taken up and then critiqued etc. This is a complex process
but one which has brought vastly more to light about the roots of B & T
than your reductive parody might lead people to think.
Van Buren uses some of the conclusions of his historical research into this
earlier period to, in effect, critique some aspects of H's later thought.
Caputo does a similar thing. You may not agree with their conclusions - but
substantive debate rather than parody would perhaps be a more constructive
engagement.
Kisiel, as far as I have seen, is different again. He explains in detail
H's changing tacks in a way that had not so clearly been done publicly
either by Heideggger himself, or his authorised interpreters (eg Poggler),
or his students (eg Arendt). Out of his research has come extraordinarily
fruitful approaches for future work. But he does not (except marginally)
criticise Heidegger - his work is explanatory and descriptive for the most
part. So, it's hard to see how you can call his work some kind of search
for a 'real' Heidegger as if it was a piece of depth psychology. It's
simply making clear in ways that were not widely known before, the thinking
of the earlier Heidegger - and the ways in which this can be seen to ground
his latter thought paths, points of continuity and discontinuity - as I
already wrote.
Is your point that any sort of uncovering of those parts of H's work that
are not widely known is a falling away from the true path? For, of course
many of H's colleagues and students knew of the existence of these lectures
and texts and of their importance and wrote so. In addition later
interpreters of Heidegger, such as Krell, have themselves delved into this
material in an effort to understand better what H's path of thinking was.
I wonder why you are so clear that this thoughtful research is not helpful?
[text deleted - the rest of your post is an expansion of this point - which
I question]
<<In your last post replying to mine you commented "I'm prepared to go
along with all of that" - the question here is "just in what did that
preparation consist".>>
I'm not sure what you mean here - I'd be grateful if you could be a little
more expansive.
Cheers,
Jacob Knee
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---