>No one has answered my question...
>I am simply interested in Heidegger's response to Nietzshe's views on art
>erik champion M.Arch
I can't answer your question but I can hobble together a few notes:
According to Heidegger's Nietzsche in order to be as its own truth will to
power must constantly will new truths. It can never settle down with itself
for fear of a petrifaction of 'life'. For the "will is, as the will to
power, the command to more power.... The will must in this way posit a
condition for a willing-out-beyond-itself" (Heidegger, 'Nietzsche's word:
God is dead'in 'The Question Concerning Technology & other essays', p. 80).
Art is apparently that which fulfills this condition, and in which "the
will to power first frees itself to itself" (p. 85). As this
self-transcending movement, art:
"is the value that first opens all heights of ascent. Art is the highest
value. In relation to the value truth, it is the higher value. The one,
ever in a fresh way, calls forth the other. Both values determine in their
value-relation the unitive essence of the intrinsically value-positing will
to power" (p. 86).
Art, as the constant self-transcendence of will, becomes the highest value
of N's metaphysics. I'm not sure whether this does violence to Nietzsche's
texts but I guess the constant over reaching of will to power would
probably constitute something of a 'great stimulant for life'. However, H's
interpretation of N is also supposed to be his own confrontation with
Nazism (Hitlerism) and by the 40's this had degenerated into a sort of
apocalyptic critique of will to power as the incessant machination of the
will to will which wills itself as constant willing. In this sense N's art
as constantly willing out beyond itself might lay the grounds for
machination following which the later H then goes on to give poesis as the
essence of techne/technology.
But then H's early to mid 30's critique of Nietzsche/Nazism seems to take a
much more optimistic view of the possibilities of will to power. H's
relation to N's art, while still situating N within a metaphysics of
subjectness, seems much more ambiguous (ambivalent?).
In 'Origin of the work of art' c. 1935 (whilst not explicitly dealing with
N) the work of art is an historical truth only in that it gives itself as
the withheld determination of one's own historical Dasein. The
disclosedness of openness, as this thrown Dasein, will always be
historically determined but this determination can only be said
'poetically'. When art discloses the openness within which beings as a
whole are grounded it "attains to its historical essence as foundation"
(Basic Writings', p. 201). The happening of art then grounds the truth of
beings in any particular epoch of history where: "History is the
transporting of a people into its appointed task as entry into that
people's endowment.... [where] Art as founding is essentially historical"
(p. 202).
I don't know if interpreting the essence of the historical destiny of a
people as poesis amounts to an 'aestheticization' of politics but art
remains an open possibility for that confrontation with nihilism which, c.
1955, "must happen in a realm that is, on the one hand, akin to technology
[ie. a revealing] and, on the other, fundamentally different from it. Such
a realm is art" ('The question concerning technology'). By this time art is
associated with the 'saving power'.
So what to make of H's response to N's views on art? And how to reconcile
the notion of a peoples historical destiny (specifically mid twentieth
century Germans) with the authentic call to one's own historical Dasein?
>If Heidegger sees the individual versus the collective as a "non-starter",
>how does
>he distinguish his philosophy from that of Hegel's World Spirit as in some
>form of
>world-mind/spirit/geist: some form of future world-consciousness? Or
>doesn't he?
So many huge questions, where do we start?
************************************************
The F=FChrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law....
Heil Hitler!
Martin Heidegger, c. 1934
************************************************
Malcolm Riddoch
Murdoch University
Western Australia
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>I am simply interested in Heidegger's response to Nietzshe's views on art
>erik champion M.Arch
I can't answer your question but I can hobble together a few notes:
According to Heidegger's Nietzsche in order to be as its own truth will to
power must constantly will new truths. It can never settle down with itself
for fear of a petrifaction of 'life'. For the "will is, as the will to
power, the command to more power.... The will must in this way posit a
condition for a willing-out-beyond-itself" (Heidegger, 'Nietzsche's word:
God is dead'in 'The Question Concerning Technology & other essays', p. 80).
Art is apparently that which fulfills this condition, and in which "the
will to power first frees itself to itself" (p. 85). As this
self-transcending movement, art:
"is the value that first opens all heights of ascent. Art is the highest
value. In relation to the value truth, it is the higher value. The one,
ever in a fresh way, calls forth the other. Both values determine in their
value-relation the unitive essence of the intrinsically value-positing will
to power" (p. 86).
Art, as the constant self-transcendence of will, becomes the highest value
of N's metaphysics. I'm not sure whether this does violence to Nietzsche's
texts but I guess the constant over reaching of will to power would
probably constitute something of a 'great stimulant for life'. However, H's
interpretation of N is also supposed to be his own confrontation with
Nazism (Hitlerism) and by the 40's this had degenerated into a sort of
apocalyptic critique of will to power as the incessant machination of the
will to will which wills itself as constant willing. In this sense N's art
as constantly willing out beyond itself might lay the grounds for
machination following which the later H then goes on to give poesis as the
essence of techne/technology.
But then H's early to mid 30's critique of Nietzsche/Nazism seems to take a
much more optimistic view of the possibilities of will to power. H's
relation to N's art, while still situating N within a metaphysics of
subjectness, seems much more ambiguous (ambivalent?).
In 'Origin of the work of art' c. 1935 (whilst not explicitly dealing with
N) the work of art is an historical truth only in that it gives itself as
the withheld determination of one's own historical Dasein. The
disclosedness of openness, as this thrown Dasein, will always be
historically determined but this determination can only be said
'poetically'. When art discloses the openness within which beings as a
whole are grounded it "attains to its historical essence as foundation"
(Basic Writings', p. 201). The happening of art then grounds the truth of
beings in any particular epoch of history where: "History is the
transporting of a people into its appointed task as entry into that
people's endowment.... [where] Art as founding is essentially historical"
(p. 202).
I don't know if interpreting the essence of the historical destiny of a
people as poesis amounts to an 'aestheticization' of politics but art
remains an open possibility for that confrontation with nihilism which, c.
1955, "must happen in a realm that is, on the one hand, akin to technology
[ie. a revealing] and, on the other, fundamentally different from it. Such
a realm is art" ('The question concerning technology'). By this time art is
associated with the 'saving power'.
So what to make of H's response to N's views on art? And how to reconcile
the notion of a peoples historical destiny (specifically mid twentieth
century Germans) with the authentic call to one's own historical Dasein?
>If Heidegger sees the individual versus the collective as a "non-starter",
>how does
>he distinguish his philosophy from that of Hegel's World Spirit as in some
>form of
>world-mind/spirit/geist: some form of future world-consciousness? Or
>doesn't he?
So many huge questions, where do we start?
************************************************
The F=FChrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law....
Heil Hitler!
Martin Heidegger, c. 1934
************************************************
Malcolm Riddoch
Murdoch University
Western Australia
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---