I mistakenly deleted the cue, "revelation/theology", I wanted;
so forgive the omission of attribution.
The reason why H is so deja vu'ie is that so much of his "thinking
being" seems secularized (or "death of god", or "onto-")Christian theology
(mysticism, gnosticism, etc.).
The notion of Truth qua aletheia is, of course, at bottom,
the familiar one of "revelation", "epiphany", "insight",
Saul en route to Damascus, etc. This "Truth" is granted only
to the select few (among which, I gather, some of us are not).
Similarly, apropos the "rhetoric" question, H's language clearly
strains after hieratic effect and soteriological earnest.
Of course, this is all reasonable enough,...in a sense doing a
cognate thing with Bultman. There's only the problem of H's
claiming a "radical departure" from this, what he calls the
"Western metaphysical" tradition.
Anyway, I find Chris Morrissey's and Michael Staples' skepticism
hermeneutically heuristic.
Bob Scheetz
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
so forgive the omission of attribution.
The reason why H is so deja vu'ie is that so much of his "thinking
being" seems secularized (or "death of god", or "onto-")Christian theology
(mysticism, gnosticism, etc.).
The notion of Truth qua aletheia is, of course, at bottom,
the familiar one of "revelation", "epiphany", "insight",
Saul en route to Damascus, etc. This "Truth" is granted only
to the select few (among which, I gather, some of us are not).
Similarly, apropos the "rhetoric" question, H's language clearly
strains after hieratic effect and soteriological earnest.
Of course, this is all reasonable enough,...in a sense doing a
cognate thing with Bultman. There's only the problem of H's
claiming a "radical departure" from this, what he calls the
"Western metaphysical" tradition.
Anyway, I find Chris Morrissey's and Michael Staples' skepticism
hermeneutically heuristic.
Bob Scheetz
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---