I'm new to the list, though I've flown through before, and was interested in
the recent exchange, particularly as it touched on the turn and
_Introduction to Metaphysics_. So I'll throw in my tuppeny worth...
I've never been that clear about the 'turn'. Located in the early thirties
it seems to focus on texts such as ITM and yet the interpretations of the
turn don't seem to connect to the texts I've read. tb2 talks of an
active/passive split. I think I'd prefer talk of a Daein(as
subject)/Dasein(as place for events/ing) split rather than an
active/passive, since the passivity implies a neutrality, not necassarily
intended, which seems illegitmate. ITM in particular has a very active
force, the force of questioning and the wil to know, rights at its heart.
This priority of the question does seem to justify the idea of the
'philosopher kings' interpretation of Heidegger in this period, The
rhetoric of ITM, aside form the 'neither washington nor moscow but berlin'
approach, which is in itself worth looking at, is highly focussed on the
critical experience and almost breathes the essence of Socratic examination
as its highest principle. 'The question' also seems to me the closest
Heidegger gets to Schellingian axiomatic freedom, a timeless principle of
philosophy, together with what appears to be an appearance/reality split and
various other Hegelian/Schellingian motifs. My curiosity is in this
Hegelian/Schelligian connection with Heidegger, which is borne out, for
example, by checking out the courses he was teaching. I would be interested
in whether this connection is generally agreed upon, whether Hegel or
Scheeling is the greater influence, how far a break with Kant and a move
towards Hegelian or Schellingian ideas is part of the turn and more about
the turn generally.
hmmm...well, any takers???
Matt
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
the recent exchange, particularly as it touched on the turn and
_Introduction to Metaphysics_. So I'll throw in my tuppeny worth...
I've never been that clear about the 'turn'. Located in the early thirties
it seems to focus on texts such as ITM and yet the interpretations of the
turn don't seem to connect to the texts I've read. tb2 talks of an
active/passive split. I think I'd prefer talk of a Daein(as
subject)/Dasein(as place for events/ing) split rather than an
active/passive, since the passivity implies a neutrality, not necassarily
intended, which seems illegitmate. ITM in particular has a very active
force, the force of questioning and the wil to know, rights at its heart.
This priority of the question does seem to justify the idea of the
'philosopher kings' interpretation of Heidegger in this period, The
rhetoric of ITM, aside form the 'neither washington nor moscow but berlin'
approach, which is in itself worth looking at, is highly focussed on the
critical experience and almost breathes the essence of Socratic examination
as its highest principle. 'The question' also seems to me the closest
Heidegger gets to Schellingian axiomatic freedom, a timeless principle of
philosophy, together with what appears to be an appearance/reality split and
various other Hegelian/Schellingian motifs. My curiosity is in this
Hegelian/Schelligian connection with Heidegger, which is borne out, for
example, by checking out the courses he was teaching. I would be interested
in whether this connection is generally agreed upon, whether Hegel or
Scheeling is the greater influence, how far a break with Kant and a move
towards Hegelian or Schellingian ideas is part of the turn and more about
the turn generally.
hmmm...well, any takers???
Matt
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---