I'm relatively new to this list, and this is my first real post, so allow
me to introduce myself and to make a few comments to Michael Eldred's
recent post.
>Dasein is not the ontological difference. Dasein as
>such is let into, exposed to, thrown into, inlaid in the ontological
>difference.
>The Da of Da-sein could perhaps be said to be the ontological difference.
Heidegger makes a point similar to this one in "Vom Wesen der Wahrheit",
where he describes Da-sein as 'having' man, which can perhaps be glossed as
'appropriating'. Man is not Da-sein, rather Da-sein has or appropriates
man, precisely as the advent of truth understood as aletheia.
>I come back to the formulation of the turning that I quoted in my posting of
>the
>same name: "The name 'time' is the preliminary name for what is later called
>'the truth of being'." The turning: a change of names? Through this renaming
>thinking reaches the "locality of another dimension"?
One qualification: the motif of 'the truth of beyng' undergoes modification
towards the end of Heid.'s career, in particular in the Vier Seminare
(sorry I can't track down a textual reference -- my copy's at the library).
There Heid. discusses the path pursued in the 30's and early 40's towards
the essence of truth as perhaps misleading, in the sense that 'Wahrheit'
does not sufficiently translate aletheia. 'Translate' of course is meant
here in the duplex sense elaborated in "The Anaximander Fragment": i.e.,
'Wahrheit' fails to carry forth the original Gk sense of aletheia as
Unverborgenheit (or, better, Entbergung), due to its ineluctably
metaphysical connotations, and it fails to carry thought (as andenkendes
Vordenken) over into the (ungrounded) presencing of the Gk name for beyng.
It is perhaps this misgiving about 'truth' which underpins the 'turn'
undertaken in _Zur Sache des Denkens_, namely from Being and Time to
Clearing and Presence.
Question: how seriously are we to then take Reiner Schuermann's insistence
that Heid's thought goes beyond aletheiaology into the realm of topology
(to which Mr. Eldred's final sentence alludes)?
Best regards,
Paul N. Murphy
University of Toronto
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
me to introduce myself and to make a few comments to Michael Eldred's
recent post.
>Dasein is not the ontological difference. Dasein as
>such is let into, exposed to, thrown into, inlaid in the ontological
>difference.
>The Da of Da-sein could perhaps be said to be the ontological difference.
Heidegger makes a point similar to this one in "Vom Wesen der Wahrheit",
where he describes Da-sein as 'having' man, which can perhaps be glossed as
'appropriating'. Man is not Da-sein, rather Da-sein has or appropriates
man, precisely as the advent of truth understood as aletheia.
>I come back to the formulation of the turning that I quoted in my posting of
>the
>same name: "The name 'time' is the preliminary name for what is later called
>'the truth of being'." The turning: a change of names? Through this renaming
>thinking reaches the "locality of another dimension"?
One qualification: the motif of 'the truth of beyng' undergoes modification
towards the end of Heid.'s career, in particular in the Vier Seminare
(sorry I can't track down a textual reference -- my copy's at the library).
There Heid. discusses the path pursued in the 30's and early 40's towards
the essence of truth as perhaps misleading, in the sense that 'Wahrheit'
does not sufficiently translate aletheia. 'Translate' of course is meant
here in the duplex sense elaborated in "The Anaximander Fragment": i.e.,
'Wahrheit' fails to carry forth the original Gk sense of aletheia as
Unverborgenheit (or, better, Entbergung), due to its ineluctably
metaphysical connotations, and it fails to carry thought (as andenkendes
Vordenken) over into the (ungrounded) presencing of the Gk name for beyng.
It is perhaps this misgiving about 'truth' which underpins the 'turn'
undertaken in _Zur Sache des Denkens_, namely from Being and Time to
Clearing and Presence.
Question: how seriously are we to then take Reiner Schuermann's insistence
that Heid's thought goes beyond aletheiaology into the realm of topology
(to which Mr. Eldred's final sentence alludes)?
Best regards,
Paul N. Murphy
University of Toronto
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---