From: Martin Weatherston[SMTP:mweather@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 29 April 1996 10:46
<<I regard any statement about the "failure" of B&T with great
suspicion. There seem to be a lot of people who claim that B&T is simply
*irrelevant* to any later thinking. Anyone who has read Heidegger's
response to Richardson surely should not make that mistake.
Any "failure" of B&T is one of not being original enough, not a
total failure.>>
I agree with you. H. is clear that B & T is not irrelevant to his later
thought. Indeed how could it be since the courses that follow it are at
first an attempt to complete part of the work. And then are a thoughtful
re-orientation - both a going back and a going on, if you want. There is a
clear unity (not uniformity) which binds together H's thinking in such a
way that it genuinely is a crossing and recrossing - always following the
'guiding star'.
There is clearly however some respect in which H. thought B & T 'failed'
and 'did not succeed'. Cf Letter on Humanism (in Basic Writings p207 - 8).
I note in passing that both David Farrell Krell (in Intimations of
Mortality) and Kisiel are prepared to speak of failure in respect of B & T.
Yet neither of them, clearly, think B & T is irrelevant to H's later
thought - in fact quite the contrary.
The ways in which it might be said to have failed - I tried to raise -
without much success!
[text deleted]
<<Unless we are to take these passages as more evidence of
Heidegger's creative re-interpretation of his own path, we have to
recognize that the project of B&T is relevant for Heidegger's later work,
and not just a blunder that he came to regret.>>
Absolutely!
Cheers,
Jacob Knee
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---