Eric Champion wrote recently (Diverse questions indeed!):
> but that does not mean philosophers cannot think, or that thinkers cannot
>be philosophers. Philosophy versus thinking, another bifurcation of yours.
The poles of the "bifurcation" spoken of here are not oppositional, no need
for "versus" here. Indeed as is said above, thinkers can and do
philosophise and philosophers can and do think; but if we substitute 'bake'
and 'baker' for 'think' and 'thinker' then the statement still holds. Not
being facetious: the statement does not say anything essential concerning
thinking and philosophising. Heidegger in discussing Nietzsche's
metaphysics of the will-to-power says:
"The order (of the planetary management of the earth that is pre-figured by
Nietzsche's metaphysics) no longer needs philosophy because philosophy is
already its foundation. But with the end of philosophy, thinking is not
also at its end, but in transition to another beginning."
('The End of Philosophy', 1973, Souvenir Press, pp.95-96)
There is no 'bifurcation' of thinking and philosophy, these are not
separate categories for bundling up into neatly packageable intellectual
commodities, there is no versus between brand-names of intellectual or
spiritual products. As Heidegger so clearly perceives: it is only in the
greatest extremis of total technological calculative 'thinking' that
'philosophy' can terminate (lose all real power) and be merely seen as one
further cultural category (like baking or fishing or war-gaming or...) to
be managed and even taught and celebrated to ever greater numbers (mass
education).
Please, we must bear in mind (whoops) that Heidegger's notion of thinking
(something we are still not doing) is more like an approach at nearness to
Being and not so much like a finely-spun and articulate cogitation (somehow
going on in the 'head'). Philosophy in the service of the technological
accommodation of the essence of technology becomes mere cleverness and
dis-appears as a power. What can thinking be in the absence of philosophy
(except in the conventional sense of philosophy where it is seen as the
activity-scenario of those professed to be philosophers and their cronies
and students and ... -- the philosophy business)? This is the question we
should be asking ourselves in this thought-provoking time of ours (where
Thatcher is deemed to have a philosophy, where bombs are accepted as smart,
where stupid expert systems are said to be intelligent, where thinking is
said to be the province of management consultant wimps like De Bono, where
philosophy is seen to be the memorisation of what who 'thought' or
opinionated about whatever, where ...).
I rest for now
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> but that does not mean philosophers cannot think, or that thinkers cannot
>be philosophers. Philosophy versus thinking, another bifurcation of yours.
The poles of the "bifurcation" spoken of here are not oppositional, no need
for "versus" here. Indeed as is said above, thinkers can and do
philosophise and philosophers can and do think; but if we substitute 'bake'
and 'baker' for 'think' and 'thinker' then the statement still holds. Not
being facetious: the statement does not say anything essential concerning
thinking and philosophising. Heidegger in discussing Nietzsche's
metaphysics of the will-to-power says:
"The order (of the planetary management of the earth that is pre-figured by
Nietzsche's metaphysics) no longer needs philosophy because philosophy is
already its foundation. But with the end of philosophy, thinking is not
also at its end, but in transition to another beginning."
('The End of Philosophy', 1973, Souvenir Press, pp.95-96)
There is no 'bifurcation' of thinking and philosophy, these are not
separate categories for bundling up into neatly packageable intellectual
commodities, there is no versus between brand-names of intellectual or
spiritual products. As Heidegger so clearly perceives: it is only in the
greatest extremis of total technological calculative 'thinking' that
'philosophy' can terminate (lose all real power) and be merely seen as one
further cultural category (like baking or fishing or war-gaming or...) to
be managed and even taught and celebrated to ever greater numbers (mass
education).
Please, we must bear in mind (whoops) that Heidegger's notion of thinking
(something we are still not doing) is more like an approach at nearness to
Being and not so much like a finely-spun and articulate cogitation (somehow
going on in the 'head'). Philosophy in the service of the technological
accommodation of the essence of technology becomes mere cleverness and
dis-appears as a power. What can thinking be in the absence of philosophy
(except in the conventional sense of philosophy where it is seen as the
activity-scenario of those professed to be philosophers and their cronies
and students and ... -- the philosophy business)? This is the question we
should be asking ourselves in this thought-provoking time of ours (where
Thatcher is deemed to have a philosophy, where bombs are accepted as smart,
where stupid expert systems are said to be intelligent, where thinking is
said to be the province of management consultant wimps like De Bono, where
philosophy is seen to be the memorisation of what who 'thought' or
opinionated about whatever, where ...).
I rest for now
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---