Chris Doss writes:
Isn't accusing
>the Sache des Denkens because of its obliviousness to human concerns
>a bit like assaulting relativity theory because it provides no possible
>basis for ethics?
Good question ... only the 'Sache des Denkens' isn't entirely 'oblivious'
to human concerns, as construed by Heidegger, to the extent that Being
'needs' or 'calls upon' or 'claims' man. My question is to what degree this
claim issues (exclusively) to what Michael Eldred so tellingly refers to as
"German thinking", whereby the German Volk (of thinkers and poets) become
the 'elect', presumably gathered to their heroic singularity above the rest
of the Babelian global *unrein* preterite mass, which lacks kinship or
patrimony to the pristine Hellenic origin. This is a roundabout and perhaps
confounding way of answering Eric Champion's post on "The Art of
Philosophy" -- I have much to say about the topic, Eric, only I need to
think it over. I only refer to the demigod Hoelderlin as presented in
_Hoelderlins Hymnen: Germanien und der Rhein_ (GA 39?), presiding incognito
over the deutsche Volksgemeinschaft as their principial destiny. In short,
how well-defined is the boundary-line between the politics of thinking and
the thinking of being, to use the terminology of Dr. Eldred? Moreover, how
seamless is the cut between thinking and non-thinking?
Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like Derrida...
Cheers,
Paul
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Isn't accusing
>the Sache des Denkens because of its obliviousness to human concerns
>a bit like assaulting relativity theory because it provides no possible
>basis for ethics?
Good question ... only the 'Sache des Denkens' isn't entirely 'oblivious'
to human concerns, as construed by Heidegger, to the extent that Being
'needs' or 'calls upon' or 'claims' man. My question is to what degree this
claim issues (exclusively) to what Michael Eldred so tellingly refers to as
"German thinking", whereby the German Volk (of thinkers and poets) become
the 'elect', presumably gathered to their heroic singularity above the rest
of the Babelian global *unrein* preterite mass, which lacks kinship or
patrimony to the pristine Hellenic origin. This is a roundabout and perhaps
confounding way of answering Eric Champion's post on "The Art of
Philosophy" -- I have much to say about the topic, Eric, only I need to
think it over. I only refer to the demigod Hoelderlin as presented in
_Hoelderlins Hymnen: Germanien und der Rhein_ (GA 39?), presiding incognito
over the deutsche Volksgemeinschaft as their principial destiny. In short,
how well-defined is the boundary-line between the politics of thinking and
the thinking of being, to use the terminology of Dr. Eldred? Moreover, how
seamless is the cut between thinking and non-thinking?
Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like Derrida...
Cheers,
Paul
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---