Cologne, 13 September 1996
> "It's tough to argue with Heidegger because there's something about his
> philosophy that makes him immune to criticism."
> It's tough. Maybe he's immune to criticism. But he's open to thinking.
> There's a big difference between the two.
Christopher Morrissey responds:
"Nicely put, but that's the Heideggerian rhetoric I'm talking about."
It would only be rhetoric if it were trying to persuade, but it is more an
invitation. Of course such stratagems can be used as a ploy to assume an
unassailable position of superiority. But that can be seen through.
CM:
"As for the big difference between criticism and thinking: well, just saying it
doesn't make it so."
Of course not. Only thinking for oneself makes it so. That is, by the way, one
of the main common features of philosophical and mathematical thinking: nothing
can be accepted on faith. You have to think things through for yourself. Every
thought has to be appropriated individually. In the case of mathematics, the
'objects' of thinking are so narrowly circumscribed that a proof follows with
inexorable necessity. In the case of philosophy, it takes several years to sink
in, if it does at all. Each thinker has to decide for him or herself whether
s/he has appropriated and understood a thinker. There is no external yardstick
here. Every (wo)man for him(her)self.
CM:
"Heidegger is great at ferreting out the presuppositions of others, but he's
blind to the logs in his own eye."
This is true of every thinker. But precisely for this reason, no great thinker
is ever refuted. They are suffered through in the attempt to appropriate them
over generations. Other thinkers, coming later, try to give another twist.
Perhaps today we are still reeling from the 'event' Heidegger in the history of
thinking. But that is no dispensation from thinking.
Whether I _believe_ in what Heidegger says or not is completely irrelevant.
Refutations of Heidegger are also a waste of time. Remarks of the kind
"Heidegger didn't really understand Aristotle's energeia" are on the level of
psychology and are not worthy of serious attention.
Instead, only ruthless appropriation of Heidegger by thinking his thoughtpaths
will maybe get a beam out of his eye.
So let's get on with it.
Cheers,
Michael
\\\ ° '~': '' /// ° artefact text and translation °~ \ ' ) ''' | . \ - °
.{.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : ~ °°° made by art °°° _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ {.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 Dr Michael Eldred
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> "It's tough to argue with Heidegger because there's something about his
> philosophy that makes him immune to criticism."
> It's tough. Maybe he's immune to criticism. But he's open to thinking.
> There's a big difference between the two.
Christopher Morrissey responds:
"Nicely put, but that's the Heideggerian rhetoric I'm talking about."
It would only be rhetoric if it were trying to persuade, but it is more an
invitation. Of course such stratagems can be used as a ploy to assume an
unassailable position of superiority. But that can be seen through.
CM:
"As for the big difference between criticism and thinking: well, just saying it
doesn't make it so."
Of course not. Only thinking for oneself makes it so. That is, by the way, one
of the main common features of philosophical and mathematical thinking: nothing
can be accepted on faith. You have to think things through for yourself. Every
thought has to be appropriated individually. In the case of mathematics, the
'objects' of thinking are so narrowly circumscribed that a proof follows with
inexorable necessity. In the case of philosophy, it takes several years to sink
in, if it does at all. Each thinker has to decide for him or herself whether
s/he has appropriated and understood a thinker. There is no external yardstick
here. Every (wo)man for him(her)self.
CM:
"Heidegger is great at ferreting out the presuppositions of others, but he's
blind to the logs in his own eye."
This is true of every thinker. But precisely for this reason, no great thinker
is ever refuted. They are suffered through in the attempt to appropriate them
over generations. Other thinkers, coming later, try to give another twist.
Perhaps today we are still reeling from the 'event' Heidegger in the history of
thinking. But that is no dispensation from thinking.
Whether I _believe_ in what Heidegger says or not is completely irrelevant.
Refutations of Heidegger are also a waste of time. Remarks of the kind
"Heidegger didn't really understand Aristotle's energeia" are on the level of
psychology and are not worthy of serious attention.
Instead, only ruthless appropriation of Heidegger by thinking his thoughtpaths
will maybe get a beam out of his eye.
So let's get on with it.
Cheers,
Michael
\\\ ° '~': '' /// ° artefact text and translation °~ \ ' ) ''' | . \ - °
.{.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : ~ °°° made by art °°° _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ {.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 Dr Michael Eldred
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---