>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
Mr. Pennamacoor,
Your metaphysical explanation of Heidegger's relation with philosophy -
Heidegger as essentially a thinker of the Being and only per accidens a
philosopher - is somewhat deceiving.
Let me propose you another one: Heidegger as Being is a thinker of Being,
but as a being he is a philosopher! An ontological difference!
Regards
R.F.
--- 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
Mr. Pennamacoor,
Your metaphysical explanation of Heidegger's relation with philosophy -
Heidegger as essentially a thinker of the Being and only per accidens a
philosopher - is somewhat deceiving.
Let me propose you another one: Heidegger as Being is a thinker of Being,
but as a being he is a philosopher! An ontological difference!
Regards
R.F.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---