erik champion asks (amongst other diverse questions) whether
>Heidegger rejects Nietzsche's philosophy of art
well, in my reading of Heidegger, he neither rejects nor accepts
Nietzsche's philosophy of art: simply because Heidegger will have nothing
to do with such a categorisation as 'philosophy of X' or any such division
of philosophy as 'metaphysics' or 'political philosophy' etc (except as
conventional modes of speech). These categorisations are, for Heidegger,
merely modern areas of study for modern students at modern universities,
where the non-philosophical research (ie, scientific) specialisations begin
to dominate and gather subject-matter into departments and sub-departments,
etc. A large part of Heidegger's output consisted of precisely critiques of
such areas of philosophy as 'areas': his thought concerns itself with
ontology (Being) in its difference from ontics (beings). The question is to
look at the business of categorisation itself as a manifestation of Being
-- not to do it.
Heidegger was indeed hugely drawn to art and poetics (poiesis) but
certainly not to philosophy of art or aesthetics, and in a way, the same
could be said of Nietzsche. Of course, it is possible for someone to talk
of Heidegger's philosophy of X but this is to miss out an important issue:
that Heidegger was not *essentially*, in the scholarly or professional
sense, a philosopher at all -- rather a thinker of Being. Of course, he was
empirically and concretely, a philosopher, who taught courses, who had a
position, who wrote scholarly works, books and articles. But I would like
to suggest that to look at him that way is to be correct but not just, in
much the same way that to look, with the Platonic Socrates, at man as a
being that sits, eats, sleeps, cogitates, etc is not to address the Idea of
Man at all. Of course, men do concretely eat, sleep, etc -- but so do
animals that are not men.
Heidegger did not 'have' a philosophy of art (or any thing else) because
his thinking was itself a-kin to art: it was a kind of art-of-art, it did
not concern it self with making over art into a topic. His kinship with
Nietzsche lies in the attention to the business of gene-alogy and
arche-ology of things: the concern with origins.
Please re-read Heidegger's 'The Origin of the Work of Art' in his
wonderful text 'The Question Concerning Technology'. And think again.
patronisingly yours
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>Heidegger rejects Nietzsche's philosophy of art
well, in my reading of Heidegger, he neither rejects nor accepts
Nietzsche's philosophy of art: simply because Heidegger will have nothing
to do with such a categorisation as 'philosophy of X' or any such division
of philosophy as 'metaphysics' or 'political philosophy' etc (except as
conventional modes of speech). These categorisations are, for Heidegger,
merely modern areas of study for modern students at modern universities,
where the non-philosophical research (ie, scientific) specialisations begin
to dominate and gather subject-matter into departments and sub-departments,
etc. A large part of Heidegger's output consisted of precisely critiques of
such areas of philosophy as 'areas': his thought concerns itself with
ontology (Being) in its difference from ontics (beings). The question is to
look at the business of categorisation itself as a manifestation of Being
-- not to do it.
Heidegger was indeed hugely drawn to art and poetics (poiesis) but
certainly not to philosophy of art or aesthetics, and in a way, the same
could be said of Nietzsche. Of course, it is possible for someone to talk
of Heidegger's philosophy of X but this is to miss out an important issue:
that Heidegger was not *essentially*, in the scholarly or professional
sense, a philosopher at all -- rather a thinker of Being. Of course, he was
empirically and concretely, a philosopher, who taught courses, who had a
position, who wrote scholarly works, books and articles. But I would like
to suggest that to look at him that way is to be correct but not just, in
much the same way that to look, with the Platonic Socrates, at man as a
being that sits, eats, sleeps, cogitates, etc is not to address the Idea of
Man at all. Of course, men do concretely eat, sleep, etc -- but so do
animals that are not men.
Heidegger did not 'have' a philosophy of art (or any thing else) because
his thinking was itself a-kin to art: it was a kind of art-of-art, it did
not concern it self with making over art into a topic. His kinship with
Nietzsche lies in the attention to the business of gene-alogy and
arche-ology of things: the concern with origins.
Please re-read Heidegger's 'The Origin of the Work of Art' in his
wonderful text 'The Question Concerning Technology'. And think again.
patronisingly yours
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---