Cologne, 28 June 1996
Dear Laurence,
well, at the start I was annoyed, but once I started writing the irritation
disappeared. It was more trying to drive a point home - regarding Temporalitaet.
I do not think the Hin- und Herwenden you cite in Vom Wesen der Wahrheit can
be equated immediately with the Kehre since the former concerns humankind
(my preferred translation of Mensch is many contexts) and the second the
turning around of Sein und Zeit or Wesen der Wahrheit into Zeit und Sein and
Wahrheit des Wesens resp. This last term is in turn a certain turning of beyng
towards humankind through which humankind first becomes Dasein (cf. the
Grounding of the There in the Beitraege). This shows Dasein to be an event, an
advent, rather than a theory or philosophy of existence, which is a possible
reading of SZ.
We certainly do agree that the turning does not involve "a turning away from the
problem of Being and Time." (Encyc. Britt.) I do not go along with attempts to
separate an acceptable Heidegger from an unacceptable (ideological)
Heidegger, as say Habermas does in the foreword to Farias' book. At the same
time I don't go along with attempts to explain away and smooth out the shifts
that Heidegger's thinking goes through as done e.g. by F-W. von Herrmann, who
makes a very closed system out of H.'s thinking where no further questions are
possible.
There's also the slant on the turning that makes of it a dry philological
problem (e.g. Poeggeler, whom I find pretty tame).
Certainly, SZ is unique in being conceived as a tight conceptual whole and
proceeding as a transcendental descent into conditions of possibility. And its
language is also unique, with its highly characteristic melody, very different
>from the lectures and all the later writings.
von Herrmann also characterizes the turning as a turning from Dasein as starting
point to the beyng as such and especially to the history of beyng, but he also
emphasizes continuity. What do you make of that?
I agree: "not rational sequences", but paths of thinking that open perspectives
on very different aspects. Always the same, but different. (There is only one
phenomenon: beyng).
Greetings,
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\~/// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ~ \ ~~
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ / ~ ~
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \ ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Dear Laurence,
well, at the start I was annoyed, but once I started writing the irritation
disappeared. It was more trying to drive a point home - regarding Temporalitaet.
I do not think the Hin- und Herwenden you cite in Vom Wesen der Wahrheit can
be equated immediately with the Kehre since the former concerns humankind
(my preferred translation of Mensch is many contexts) and the second the
turning around of Sein und Zeit or Wesen der Wahrheit into Zeit und Sein and
Wahrheit des Wesens resp. This last term is in turn a certain turning of beyng
towards humankind through which humankind first becomes Dasein (cf. the
Grounding of the There in the Beitraege). This shows Dasein to be an event, an
advent, rather than a theory or philosophy of existence, which is a possible
reading of SZ.
We certainly do agree that the turning does not involve "a turning away from the
problem of Being and Time." (Encyc. Britt.) I do not go along with attempts to
separate an acceptable Heidegger from an unacceptable (ideological)
Heidegger, as say Habermas does in the foreword to Farias' book. At the same
time I don't go along with attempts to explain away and smooth out the shifts
that Heidegger's thinking goes through as done e.g. by F-W. von Herrmann, who
makes a very closed system out of H.'s thinking where no further questions are
possible.
There's also the slant on the turning that makes of it a dry philological
problem (e.g. Poeggeler, whom I find pretty tame).
Certainly, SZ is unique in being conceived as a tight conceptual whole and
proceeding as a transcendental descent into conditions of possibility. And its
language is also unique, with its highly characteristic melody, very different
>from the lectures and all the later writings.
von Herrmann also characterizes the turning as a turning from Dasein as starting
point to the beyng as such and especially to the history of beyng, but he also
emphasizes continuity. What do you make of that?
I agree: "not rational sequences", but paths of thinking that open perspectives
on very different aspects. Always the same, but different. (There is only one
phenomenon: beyng).
Greetings,
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\~/// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ~ \ ~~
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ / ~ ~
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \ ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---