In a message dated 03/07/2004 20:25:10 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:olughod2003@xxxxxxxxx)
Omar writes:
I'm not sure why you would limit philosophy to contemporary and all too
ordinary usage.
Jud:
I haven't actually said that though have I? Initially I merely reported the
response of a certain PITS [person on the street] who was interviewed on our
local radio station as to who he thought Heidegger was, and what did he think
of his ideas. The passer's-by remarks merely mirrored what most ordinary
folk already think of people like cardsharping coves such as Heidegger, for most
folk are naturally suspicious of language which is obviously and manifestly
DELIBERATELY fanciful and tortured out of all recognition as a clear
mechanism of communication.
Now this criticism of Heidegger is not confined to me — he is something of a
laughingstock in the ALL philosophy departments of ALL universities. This is
not just only regarding the grotesquerie of his notions, but because of the
language that he employs to overcomplicate it and make it damn near
impenetrable to the average man. Why? Because if it WAS penetrable, it would be
obvious to the authorities who recommend grants to the universities and colleges.
If the people responsible for ladling out the cash [that the poor old
taxpayer shells out to pay for this rubbish] - understood the real nature of the
existentialist crap, they would be suddenly aware that they and the rest of
the population were the victims of of a huge academuc con-job, the money would
dry-up overnight and thousands of academics would have to look for jobs in
McDonalds or strat pushing brushes around Walmart. The name of the game in the
corridors of academic shame? Make it as difficult and incomprehensible as
possible boys - if you want to hang on to your job - bullshit for all you are
worth!
Now if his ideas were SO NEW and FRESH [the 'end of metaphysics haha!'] and
'revolutionary' and 'cutting-edge' as to render them too 'complicated' to be
transcribed or communicated using conventional [meaning 'generally
understood and easily recognisable'] language, one could perhaps go someway towards
excusing his bizarre neologisms and grammatical acrobatics and pantomime
entertaiments — but the opposite is true. His ideas are/were simple ones — tired
old ideas regurgitated - not new ones. The notion of 'BEING' [which he
sneaked into the God-slot] goes back thousands of years.
I have challenged Heideggerians on this list and others FOR YEARS to tell us
ONE NEW IDEA that Heidegger introduced that wasn't part of the metaphysical
canon - repackaged and marketed as new? Dasein? Nope - it's all been done
before. Angst? No - think again. The 'Ontological difference?' Old hat going
back yonks [many years]. Now what 'redefinition of our perspective of the world'
can be laid at Heidegger's door? That we are all going to die whether we like
it or not? Do you think for one moment that mankind was not already aware of
that? That Hitler should be the centre of our world and his will the only
will worth bothering about? No, we fought a war against that. So what exactly
did the plagiaristic little Nazi turd introduce that was new? And if the
'ideas' embodied in this philosophical emesis were so childishly simple, why the
mind-bogglingly obfuscatory language in which he wrapped it all in the
metaphysical sick-bag known as Being and Time? 'Being' is a non-existent fart in
a non-existent bottle - why the need for neologisms?
Omar:
A philosophy redefines our perspective on the world, and language use is
certainly important to that possibility. Heidegger claims a perspective, in
Being and Time, that thematizes human beings with respect to their Being
(Dasein).
Jud:
Please mention ONE PHILOSOPHER in the history of mankind who doesn't
thematise humanity against the background of their existing as beings? A child
could tell you that every damn human being on the planet can only be related to
or ontologically constituted as a topic of discourse if he or she exists or
existed in the past. If they have no being [if they do not exist] then they
can't be ANYTHING - they can't be talked about or ignored — because there is/was
no 'they' to be addressed. To thematise anything whether it be animal,
vegetable or mineral presupposes that they or it exists [or existed at some time
in the past].
Omar:
Would you have him use an ontic vocabulary, when the entire point is to get
past it? You ask him to demonstrate his claims using a language that by its
very nature appeals to the "average everdayness" that he is trying to
deconstruct.
Jud:
What on earth is an 'ontic vocabulary?' I am asking him to demonstrate his
claims in a clear and forthright fashion — in straightforward uncomplicated
prose. His ideas were uncomplicated - so there is no need for complication and
evasion. What is strange about that? Which of his concepts are so
'deconstructive' or 'unworldly' that they cannot be rendered in the rich and
expressive German language or translated into probably the most rich and expressive
language the world has ever experienced - English? Please give us some examples
of Heddegerian words or notions that required the creation of neologisms
because of a linguistic lack or because there were no suitable words in the
German or English lexicon to render the 'fantastic philosophical breakthrough?'
Omar:
Do you raise similar criticisms against Plato, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein,
Nietzsche, all of who employed a difficult and very personal language? Yet one
cannot divorce their use of language from the perspective they were trying to
capture. They are reshaping the way we look at the world, and unless that
reshaping is complete, they deny the fundamentality of their claims.
Jud:
Occasionally yes, but much less so than when I am dealing with the
Marburgian Metaphysical Mumbler. Most of the ones you mention may be difficult for
some, but that is because of the philosophical complexity and maturity of the
ideas and the general pedestrian nature of German academic expression. With
Heidegger the boot is on the other foot — the ideas are childish and naive and
the language is practically senile as it totters from one creaking sentence to
the next.
Omar:
I read a passage of Charles Peirce to a friend who was astonished by its
ungrammaticalness. I explained that all philosophy looks ungrammatical to the
uninitiated. Wittgenstein's entire later philosophy is a demonstration of the
peculiarity of philosophical language: see his On Certainty and funny analysis
of Moore's: 'I know that is a tree'. It requires a very peculiar perspective
to make that kind of typical philosophical claim.
Jud:
Wittgenstein is not my cup of tea — far too metaphysical and airy-fairy.
However he DID attempt a linguistic analysis of the tradition. Heidegger [as far
as I know] hardly ever mentions linguistics, and has the cheek to frankly
admit that he didn't understand how BE worked semantically, and dismissed it as
unimportant. He doesn't mention that he had earlier writen a book about
Being whilst not knowing a thing about what the BE-mechanism was and how it
worked. But he was a well known liar as his girlfriend said - so we shouldn't be
shocked.
Omar:
Its not as if Heidegger's project is unrecognizable: it extends Kant's
understanding of our finitude phenomonologically and hermeneutically. (existential
analytic).
Jud:
Finitude? Existence? Understanding? Every man Jack and every girl Jill on
the planet knows he or she is going to die! How on earth did Heidegger's project
'extend' what human kind have known for millennia? Are you HONESTLY trying
to have us believe that he was telling us something new?
Omar:
Yet how is he to overcome the same tradition if he appeals to the very
vocabulary which renders it inevitable.
Jud:
Overcome what? What is there to be 'overcome?' Go on — the floor is yours -
How on earth would Heidegger's appeals to all and sundry to get behind and
support Adolf Hitler assist the world in 'overcoming' anything at all? When he
announced that: 'I must decide to accomplish the task that will allow me to
best serve the work of Adolf Hitler." What was he trying to 'overcome?' Was he
appealing to the 'tradition' to take this path as a method of 'overcoming' or
not? If not why not? If yes - Why?
Cheers, and have a nice weekend,
Jud.
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---