RE: the texts of thinking

>So are you contradicting me, Paul, or simply given another slant by showing
>how
>important somw other non-philosophical texts (such as Sophocles or Hoelderlin)
>are for Heidegger? My aim was not to deny this importance but to point out
>that
>the clarity and precision with which Heidegger uses these texts for his
>question, which lies at the heart and in the heartland of the philosophical
>tradition.

Thinking it over, I don't think I'm contradicting you, in fact I'm inclined
to agree with your response to Mr. Scheetz. The claim that Heidegger is
saying what the tragedians, the authors of scripture, Shakespeare already
said, but in a 'stilted' manner, is an exaggeration (at the least).
Heidegger was no stranger to tragedy or the Bible (Shakespeare is another
issue; he seemed less interested in the Bard than the Romantics or
Schelling, or Derrida of late). That the thinking of being requires a
different relationship to language than the 'literary' is a basic
phenomenological premise I don't wish to gainsay.

Cheers,
Paul




--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



Partial thread listing: