robert scheetz wrote:
> H reads the benign, gemutlich, image of man's technological
> resourcefullness vis a vis elemental nature,
> a paean to humanistical finesse,...
> as ferocious figural allegory for dasein's history making potentiality
> in its heroically violent assault against the "overwhelming essent",
> the given historical statusquo.
A few bleary-eyed observations:
The framework for this section of IM must be kept in mind, namely, an
explication of the metaphysics of Being and Thinking. The path Heid is
following here is one reaching back primarily to Parmenides (Being and
apprehension belong together reciprocally), which is then interpreted
in the light of Heraclitean polemology (such that said
belonging-together is understood as conflictual). Into this framework
Heidegger fits a discussion of physis and techne, the rising-up /
emergence of being and man's knowing / willing bringing-to-stand of
being.
Human being's techne stamps or marks it, defines / determines it, as
das Unheimlichste, the most uncanny, which Heidegger derives from the
Sophoclean chorus in which 'deinotaton' describes man. The historical
irruption of possibility signified by human techne enmeshes human
being in the struggle against overpowering physis, opens up history as
this struggle. In and through the polemos defining the relation
between Being and human being, human being comes to take a stand or
accede to an abode, thus instituting a world.
You continue:
> Paul, Schlageter aside, how is this little bk not a scandal?
> how is this explication not perverse? how, not be read as an
> apologia for Nazism? doesn't this essentially qualify his
> Letter On Humanism as a Letter Against Humanism? ...
An unavoidable question to pose to IM, I think. There is a great deal
in this book to link to the 1933 Rector's address, as well as to the
1934 lecture-course on Hoelderlin's Hymns: Germania and the Rhine.
Heidegger's political stance is emphatic in these texts, and IM is
strongly implicated in Heid's philosophical relationship towards
National Socialism. Namely, a certain interpretation of Greek Dasein,
of Griechentum, is held up as a model for the 'essential decisions'
facing German Dasein or Deutschentum. This book has long disturbed me
for these very reasons. I'd caution, however, against the hasty
identification of 'apologia for Nazism'. The degree of the apologia
needs to tempered by trying to come to terms with what sort of
'Nazism' Heid. is or is not defending. Is this a simple case of
nationalism, aggravated historical grievances, calls for re-armament,
defense of the then-burgeoning race laws?
The importance of this book lies elsewhere, if I may venture to judge,
than in the particular (political) dimension you highlight. The
Parmenidian / Heraclitean question is still worthy-of-thought, still
bedenklich, beyond the horizon of the historical period; I'm just now
immersed in _Was heisst Denken?_, a book which stands as a sort of
sequel to IM, and in which the Being / Thinking matrix is much more
nuanced.
Cheers,
Paul Murphy
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> H reads the benign, gemutlich, image of man's technological
> resourcefullness vis a vis elemental nature,
> a paean to humanistical finesse,...
> as ferocious figural allegory for dasein's history making potentiality
> in its heroically violent assault against the "overwhelming essent",
> the given historical statusquo.
A few bleary-eyed observations:
The framework for this section of IM must be kept in mind, namely, an
explication of the metaphysics of Being and Thinking. The path Heid is
following here is one reaching back primarily to Parmenides (Being and
apprehension belong together reciprocally), which is then interpreted
in the light of Heraclitean polemology (such that said
belonging-together is understood as conflictual). Into this framework
Heidegger fits a discussion of physis and techne, the rising-up /
emergence of being and man's knowing / willing bringing-to-stand of
being.
Human being's techne stamps or marks it, defines / determines it, as
das Unheimlichste, the most uncanny, which Heidegger derives from the
Sophoclean chorus in which 'deinotaton' describes man. The historical
irruption of possibility signified by human techne enmeshes human
being in the struggle against overpowering physis, opens up history as
this struggle. In and through the polemos defining the relation
between Being and human being, human being comes to take a stand or
accede to an abode, thus instituting a world.
You continue:
> Paul, Schlageter aside, how is this little bk not a scandal?
> how is this explication not perverse? how, not be read as an
> apologia for Nazism? doesn't this essentially qualify his
> Letter On Humanism as a Letter Against Humanism? ...
An unavoidable question to pose to IM, I think. There is a great deal
in this book to link to the 1933 Rector's address, as well as to the
1934 lecture-course on Hoelderlin's Hymns: Germania and the Rhine.
Heidegger's political stance is emphatic in these texts, and IM is
strongly implicated in Heid's philosophical relationship towards
National Socialism. Namely, a certain interpretation of Greek Dasein,
of Griechentum, is held up as a model for the 'essential decisions'
facing German Dasein or Deutschentum. This book has long disturbed me
for these very reasons. I'd caution, however, against the hasty
identification of 'apologia for Nazism'. The degree of the apologia
needs to tempered by trying to come to terms with what sort of
'Nazism' Heid. is or is not defending. Is this a simple case of
nationalism, aggravated historical grievances, calls for re-armament,
defense of the then-burgeoning race laws?
The importance of this book lies elsewhere, if I may venture to judge,
than in the particular (political) dimension you highlight. The
Parmenidian / Heraclitean question is still worthy-of-thought, still
bedenklich, beyond the horizon of the historical period; I'm just now
immersed in _Was heisst Denken?_, a book which stands as a sort of
sequel to IM, and in which the Being / Thinking matrix is much more
nuanced.
Cheers,
Paul Murphy
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---