"The last of these. Thinking has always already been claimed by being; it
is
always already a response to being's claim."
So there's being claimed on one side and being given on the other? Or is it
all one-sided, i.e. being claims thinking and this determines in advance
the being of beings?
"They are the same. (cf. Parmenides Fragment 3 and Heidegger's
interpretation
thereof.) Thinking is the response to being's originary gathering of beings
to
stand in the de-finitions they offer to the in-sight of thinking. "
I am totally sympathetic to Heidegger on this point. But I can't shake the
feeling that he's missing something.
"I mean (a) [thinkers always select themselves]. Few are called to have it
out with the philosophical tradition at
all. On this list one probably does not have to argue for Heidegger in
particular having a weighty pull to consider this tradition in a hitherto
unknown way. Anyone can start reading the philosophers. Few do. One does
not
need much immersion in everyday life to realize that metaphysical questions
and
any sort of adequate access to them are far removed from the concerns of
just
about everybody from the baker's assistant to the Nobel-prize-winning
economist.
In view of this, why do people get upset about talk of the "few and
seldom"? "
You speak well. I guess I get impatient with such phrases because they seem
to be banners of intellectual pride and I don't know why we need to be
patting ourselves on the back for being philosophers. I like it when
Heidegger downplays his stature as a thinker. Sometimes it seems
disingenuous but it does seem to be a prerequisite for true thinking.
"Thinking is not gnosticism; it is not a selective admission to arcane
knowledge.
Thinking, in the sense of the thinking of being or the thinking of the
being of
beings, is open to misunderstandings. All understanding in this field
amounts to
not misunderstanding. Not just between thinkers, but clearing away one's
own
self-misunderstandings in the course of time. Each thinker suffers through
his/her(?) own thinking for years until it gains a sure footing, a very
individual and individuating process. "
Yes, I agree. You say what thinking should be. Your words would make a good
"Thinker's Oath".
"With the great names in thinking there is a creative act, a leap, a
powerful
positing which is nevertheless not a product of individual caprice. There
is a
creative positing of as what beings will be. "
So the source of the creative positing is Being, not the thinker's will? If
so, I agree.
"The "sway of truth" translates "das Walten der Wahrheit".
"sway" OED: "5. prevailing, overpowering or controlling influence 6. Power
of
rule or command; sovereign power or authority; dominion, rule""
"Taking truth here to be the historical truth of beings in their being,
i.e. as
what they show themselves to be, the sway of truth is not at all something
gnostic or for a select few. Truth is then the self-evidence of an
historical
epoch, i.e. for everybody. Truth is then a commonplace and everyone
possesses
it. E.g. everybody has ideas, everybody has ideals and leads their lives
within
some adequate understanding of ideas and ideals. But nobody knows that
ideas and
ideals are guises of the being of beings that hark back to Plato, who
thought
something very precisely under the term "idea". The understanding of idea
has
been levelled in the course of the centuries, even in philosophy, and it
has
taken someone like Heidegger to remind us what an enormous feat of thinking
it
was to think the being of beings as idea."
You have summed up in a paragraph why I appreciate Heidegger. Yet I do
think that the ones who know the truth about truth are in danger of sinking
into their own gnostic religion. One needs strength to resist this
tendency!
"It is the drafting of the truth of beings where the thinker is called upon
to
help shape the advent of a new historical guise of beings. This is at the
other
end of the spectrum from self-evidence. For example, Marx helps draft
beings as
material of valorization for capital in its endless, self-augmenting
circling.
In a certain way, this has become self-evident today, albeit not in the
clarity
of Marxian thinking, but nevertheless, somehow self-understood. Everything
is
only insofar as it is worth something monetarily or, more specifically, to
make
a profit."
In short, thinking has consequences. This is another reason I appreciate
Heidegger: how he understands history. It may seem a bit vain - "history is
fundamentally shaped by thinkers" - but we have to explore in what sense
this is true.
"The disclosure of the sway of truth is not a "privilege of a few", for it
is not
a privilege, but rather a calling to take on a burden. Not that one has to
pity
the poor thinkers, since such a burden invariably also gives an individual
existence its weight. Thinking is a form of creativity and, like all
creativity,
it is rare. That doesn't make it elitist or gnostic."
Well said. As rare, we are unlikely to find it among Heidegger's epigones,
don't you think?
Thanks again for the high quality posts.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
is
always already a response to being's claim."
So there's being claimed on one side and being given on the other? Or is it
all one-sided, i.e. being claims thinking and this determines in advance
the being of beings?
"They are the same. (cf. Parmenides Fragment 3 and Heidegger's
interpretation
thereof.) Thinking is the response to being's originary gathering of beings
to
stand in the de-finitions they offer to the in-sight of thinking. "
I am totally sympathetic to Heidegger on this point. But I can't shake the
feeling that he's missing something.
"I mean (a) [thinkers always select themselves]. Few are called to have it
out with the philosophical tradition at
all. On this list one probably does not have to argue for Heidegger in
particular having a weighty pull to consider this tradition in a hitherto
unknown way. Anyone can start reading the philosophers. Few do. One does
not
need much immersion in everyday life to realize that metaphysical questions
and
any sort of adequate access to them are far removed from the concerns of
just
about everybody from the baker's assistant to the Nobel-prize-winning
economist.
In view of this, why do people get upset about talk of the "few and
seldom"? "
You speak well. I guess I get impatient with such phrases because they seem
to be banners of intellectual pride and I don't know why we need to be
patting ourselves on the back for being philosophers. I like it when
Heidegger downplays his stature as a thinker. Sometimes it seems
disingenuous but it does seem to be a prerequisite for true thinking.
"Thinking is not gnosticism; it is not a selective admission to arcane
knowledge.
Thinking, in the sense of the thinking of being or the thinking of the
being of
beings, is open to misunderstandings. All understanding in this field
amounts to
not misunderstanding. Not just between thinkers, but clearing away one's
own
self-misunderstandings in the course of time. Each thinker suffers through
his/her(?) own thinking for years until it gains a sure footing, a very
individual and individuating process. "
Yes, I agree. You say what thinking should be. Your words would make a good
"Thinker's Oath".
"With the great names in thinking there is a creative act, a leap, a
powerful
positing which is nevertheless not a product of individual caprice. There
is a
creative positing of as what beings will be. "
So the source of the creative positing is Being, not the thinker's will? If
so, I agree.
"The "sway of truth" translates "das Walten der Wahrheit".
"sway" OED: "5. prevailing, overpowering or controlling influence 6. Power
of
rule or command; sovereign power or authority; dominion, rule""
"Taking truth here to be the historical truth of beings in their being,
i.e. as
what they show themselves to be, the sway of truth is not at all something
gnostic or for a select few. Truth is then the self-evidence of an
historical
epoch, i.e. for everybody. Truth is then a commonplace and everyone
possesses
it. E.g. everybody has ideas, everybody has ideals and leads their lives
within
some adequate understanding of ideas and ideals. But nobody knows that
ideas and
ideals are guises of the being of beings that hark back to Plato, who
thought
something very precisely under the term "idea". The understanding of idea
has
been levelled in the course of the centuries, even in philosophy, and it
has
taken someone like Heidegger to remind us what an enormous feat of thinking
it
was to think the being of beings as idea."
You have summed up in a paragraph why I appreciate Heidegger. Yet I do
think that the ones who know the truth about truth are in danger of sinking
into their own gnostic religion. One needs strength to resist this
tendency!
"It is the drafting of the truth of beings where the thinker is called upon
to
help shape the advent of a new historical guise of beings. This is at the
other
end of the spectrum from self-evidence. For example, Marx helps draft
beings as
material of valorization for capital in its endless, self-augmenting
circling.
In a certain way, this has become self-evident today, albeit not in the
clarity
of Marxian thinking, but nevertheless, somehow self-understood. Everything
is
only insofar as it is worth something monetarily or, more specifically, to
make
a profit."
In short, thinking has consequences. This is another reason I appreciate
Heidegger: how he understands history. It may seem a bit vain - "history is
fundamentally shaped by thinkers" - but we have to explore in what sense
this is true.
"The disclosure of the sway of truth is not a "privilege of a few", for it
is not
a privilege, but rather a calling to take on a burden. Not that one has to
pity
the poor thinkers, since such a burden invariably also gives an individual
existence its weight. Thinking is a form of creativity and, like all
creativity,
it is rare. That doesn't make it elitist or gnostic."
Well said. As rare, we are unlikely to find it among Heidegger's epigones,
don't you think?
Thanks again for the high quality posts.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---