Rene recently:
> We seem too weak
> to even willing to analyze, and question the relation of politics and
> philosophy, between 'this world' and 'world'. I'm the only one not
> stopping, and look how i bore everyone.
> That's all right with me, but the others are not all right: they're
> pretending to do philosophy, but they're only in it for themselves.
> All right again! Those with eyes can see.
Rene, I for one have never found your posts boring, mostly the opposite and
sometimes to such an extreme of stimulating that I find myself bewildered
and unable to articulate even that bewilderment. As for the questions of the
relations between politics and philosophy (and your suggestion that to avoid
such in your terms, is itself a pretence of philosophy), that itself (the
questioning, asking the right questions so as to gain some sort of access,
some rightful fitting way to the articulation of the 'real' problems) is a
philosophical problematic, and may not necessarily be accomplished in a
direct or crude (cf Jud) manner. You tend to hit things head on with a
frightening and such frightful passion (I love it, but) that sometimes
brings you into a certain proximity with Jud in a certain accusatory mode of
speech. This can be off-putting, since few of us enjoy being on trial from
the outset of a possible discussion. The issue is surely not whether one
tends to speak of 'world' or 'this world', since it is the pathway to either
that accomplishes the belonging together of something and this-something.
The plenal oneness of the world is something (and some think) to achieve in
one's speech whether that means attempting to topicalise the earthly polis
of the here-and-now or attempting to speak of the temptation of topicalising
the polis (Plato's Politeia concerns the best site of mortal habitation and
not at all the res publica of later times): if one _is_ (one) then one
obtains... Heracltus again -- the recurring problem of the _hen_ and _ta
panta_.
regards
michael in it for his self
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> We seem too weak
> to even willing to analyze, and question the relation of politics and
> philosophy, between 'this world' and 'world'. I'm the only one not
> stopping, and look how i bore everyone.
> That's all right with me, but the others are not all right: they're
> pretending to do philosophy, but they're only in it for themselves.
> All right again! Those with eyes can see.
Rene, I for one have never found your posts boring, mostly the opposite and
sometimes to such an extreme of stimulating that I find myself bewildered
and unable to articulate even that bewilderment. As for the questions of the
relations between politics and philosophy (and your suggestion that to avoid
such in your terms, is itself a pretence of philosophy), that itself (the
questioning, asking the right questions so as to gain some sort of access,
some rightful fitting way to the articulation of the 'real' problems) is a
philosophical problematic, and may not necessarily be accomplished in a
direct or crude (cf Jud) manner. You tend to hit things head on with a
frightening and such frightful passion (I love it, but) that sometimes
brings you into a certain proximity with Jud in a certain accusatory mode of
speech. This can be off-putting, since few of us enjoy being on trial from
the outset of a possible discussion. The issue is surely not whether one
tends to speak of 'world' or 'this world', since it is the pathway to either
that accomplishes the belonging together of something and this-something.
The plenal oneness of the world is something (and some think) to achieve in
one's speech whether that means attempting to topicalise the earthly polis
of the here-and-now or attempting to speak of the temptation of topicalising
the polis (Plato's Politeia concerns the best site of mortal habitation and
not at all the res publica of later times): if one _is_ (one) then one
obtains... Heracltus again -- the recurring problem of the _hen_ and _ta
panta_.
regards
michael in it for his self
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---