Michael P
>erik champion asks (amongst other diverse questions) whether..
Well, they all concerned art, and I am afraid Heidegger does use that word, amonst
many others.
>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.
Not an answer to my questions. I wonder about how you can separate art and poetics
(poesis) and yet say it is "bad"? "incorrect"? Heidegger to separate. As to
categories, Heidegger uses them himself in his discussion of art, in order to
replace previous categorisations (eg of the silversmith). WHAT IS THE FOURFOLD IF
NOT A COMING TOGETHER OF CATEGORIES?"
So earth, sky, humans, gods, are not categories? They are certainly necessary for
Heidegger to be separated, and to be defined in their clash, even if the definitions
themselves are not as clearcut as they may immediately appear.
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.
Hmm, put his books in the "thinker of Being" section then. All by himself, with
maybe the thinkers who came to the end of metaphysics appear numerically before him.
No section after him of course.
In the professional sense, if he did not make money from philosophy, or what peolle
saw as philosophy, he is a fraud, one can talk of bad philosophy as not being about
thinking, but that does not mean philosophers cannot think, or that thinkers cannot
be philosophers. Philosophy versus thinking, another bifurcation of yours.
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.
The Idea of Man is Platonic and/or Hegelian, Heidegger used a different word, that
had a different meaning.
>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.
Nb Idea as you said above, miss his writings on essence, and origins: if you read
that book again yourself you may find this very passage.
> patronisingly yours
And I thought your intentions were authentic!
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>erik champion asks (amongst other diverse questions) whether..
Well, they all concerned art, and I am afraid Heidegger does use that word, amonst
many others.
>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.
Not an answer to my questions. I wonder about how you can separate art and poetics
(poesis) and yet say it is "bad"? "incorrect"? Heidegger to separate. As to
categories, Heidegger uses them himself in his discussion of art, in order to
replace previous categorisations (eg of the silversmith). WHAT IS THE FOURFOLD IF
NOT A COMING TOGETHER OF CATEGORIES?"
So earth, sky, humans, gods, are not categories? They are certainly necessary for
Heidegger to be separated, and to be defined in their clash, even if the definitions
themselves are not as clearcut as they may immediately appear.
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.
Hmm, put his books in the "thinker of Being" section then. All by himself, with
maybe the thinkers who came to the end of metaphysics appear numerically before him.
No section after him of course.
In the professional sense, if he did not make money from philosophy, or what peolle
saw as philosophy, he is a fraud, one can talk of bad philosophy as not being about
thinking, but that does not mean philosophers cannot think, or that thinkers cannot
be philosophers. Philosophy versus thinking, another bifurcation of yours.
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.
The Idea of Man is Platonic and/or Hegelian, Heidegger used a different word, that
had a different meaning.
>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.
Nb Idea as you said above, miss his writings on essence, and origins: if you read
that book again yourself you may find this very passage.
> patronisingly yours
And I thought your intentions were authentic!
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---