I find myself agreeing with Michael P.
erik champion asks a lot of questions, not all of which I can answer off-hand.
Concerning whether Heidegger's thinking is intentionalist, one would have to say
definitely not. For one thing, Heidegger's transcendence (the transcendence of
being-in-the-world) overcomes Husserl's intentional transcendence, i.e. the
relatedness of consciousness to objects; cf. e.g. the Zollikoner Seminare where
this is admirably spelt out.
If intention is taken in the sense of will, then Heidegger's thinking goes
through an overcoming or getting-over of will, a movement that crytallizes
largely out of his having it out with Nietzsche in the thirties.
As to whether Heidegger's thinking could be called theological, this must be one
of the most frequent and favourite misreadings of his thinking. Of course one
can point to Heidegger's upbringing, his initial studies as a student of
theology, even his "love" of theology which he holds dear even late in life. In
the "Seminars" he does say he sometimes felt attracted by the project of writing
a theology, but it would have been a theology in which the word "being" does not
occur!
The "last god" and the "gods" who appear in the "Contributions to Philosophy"
are, in my estimation, among the hardest things to fathom in the thinking of
being. The very simplicity of the thinking of being is the hardest (lightest)
thing (not) to grasp. Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Allow me to warn against sociological and psychological readings of Heidegger's
texts, which sail past the task of thinking without sighting it. Instead, one
starts "explaining" things which, as one thinker has pointed out, is an
arbitrary and vacuous enterprise.
Regarding Heidegger's thinking on the artwork, one of the aspects I find most
questionable is the hierarchy of the arts presented, with poetry on top. How is
it that poetic language has the task first and foremost of opening being and
wresting a draft of the being of beings from hiddenness?
Michael Eldred °°° artefact text and translation \\\ /// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ( ~ L ~ ) [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ { <-> } *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \___/ / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
erik champion asks a lot of questions, not all of which I can answer off-hand.
Concerning whether Heidegger's thinking is intentionalist, one would have to say
definitely not. For one thing, Heidegger's transcendence (the transcendence of
being-in-the-world) overcomes Husserl's intentional transcendence, i.e. the
relatedness of consciousness to objects; cf. e.g. the Zollikoner Seminare where
this is admirably spelt out.
If intention is taken in the sense of will, then Heidegger's thinking goes
through an overcoming or getting-over of will, a movement that crytallizes
largely out of his having it out with Nietzsche in the thirties.
As to whether Heidegger's thinking could be called theological, this must be one
of the most frequent and favourite misreadings of his thinking. Of course one
can point to Heidegger's upbringing, his initial studies as a student of
theology, even his "love" of theology which he holds dear even late in life. In
the "Seminars" he does say he sometimes felt attracted by the project of writing
a theology, but it would have been a theology in which the word "being" does not
occur!
The "last god" and the "gods" who appear in the "Contributions to Philosophy"
are, in my estimation, among the hardest things to fathom in the thinking of
being. The very simplicity of the thinking of being is the hardest (lightest)
thing (not) to grasp. Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Allow me to warn against sociological and psychological readings of Heidegger's
texts, which sail past the task of thinking without sighting it. Instead, one
starts "explaining" things which, as one thinker has pointed out, is an
arbitrary and vacuous enterprise.
Regarding Heidegger's thinking on the artwork, one of the aspects I find most
questionable is the hierarchy of the arts presented, with poetry on top. How is
it that poetic language has the task first and foremost of opening being and
wresting a draft of the being of beings from hiddenness?
Michael Eldred °°° artefact text and translation \\\ /// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ( ~ L ~ ) [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ { <-> } *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \___/ / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---