"Why onto-theological?"
Paul Murphy objected to my post.
"Being" is substantivized, and agency, autonomy, affect...are predicated of it.
There is the frequent insistence that "being" is "totally different".
He accords it a "rank" transcending the "factic/ontic," empirical,... the
profane; and credits it as the head and source of all meaning. So that,
regardless the elision of the traditional anthropomorphic god-story, it is
structurally indistinguishable from such brahmin lucubrations as have always
been termed theology. (Similarly, isn't the Parmenidean "physis", which H takes
over, an explicitly religious notion, animistic, god-filled?)
and:
"It's worth pointing out that Heidegger's burgeoning
"attention to Nietzsche,...is evident in "IM, on the brink of the Odyssey "to
follow: namely, the Nietzsche lectures (and essays and sketches ...).
With a slight difference, this aspect of the bk kinda puzzles me too. No
apprentice work, right? this is the Philosopher at the acme of his powers? So
how comes it, sorting thru it one finds these massy gobbets of undigested
influences: a Nietzschean fat thigh piece, Hegelian bowell,...Spenglerian
kidney, Junger....(Sorry). While on the other hand
his Marx seems fatuous...at times perhaps confused with Weber's....?
and:
"In any case, you've leaped forward somewhat: the discussion of the grammar
"of Being is fascinating, and difficult (I think) to assimilate to the
"'narrative' you are constructing.
The philology section aims at removing what he considers the encrustations of
tradition to gain access to "original" meaning.
The a logical difficulty here: seeking a discrete absolute in an endless
regression/continuum, points up that this is a mythological (H wld say
"metaphysical") notion, as in the formula: "in the beginning". So that indeed,
structurally,this must be read as a theogony, the god, "Being," and his
pedigree.
and:
"I wonder how much of an outrage this is. Heidegger reads Sophocles here "the
way he reads Kant (among others): a 'violent' decontextualization "intendedto
displace the ordinary, common-sense, complacently received "notion of what the
text says. Through this reading of the chorus, "attention is focused on one
word: deinotaton... Heidegger draws a line "through the Sophoclean text,
connecting it to Heraclitean / Parmenidean "concerns, in order to underline the
'tragic' dimension of the being / "thinking relation.
But isn't this the opposite of hermeneutical?...and, in fact,
precisely what he is forever dope-slapping the Roman's for?
constructing his idiosyncratic world by cannibalizing the temples
and altars of the ancients? doesn't it color or typify his
entire method?
Paul,
Thanks for the responses...and just so you know: You're
absolved from any compunction where sleep is concerned...
Bob Scheetz
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---