Jud claims victory:
> I KNEW I was on the right track!
[but you have never openly questioned it, so you didn't need any validation
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche]
> _http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html_
> (http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html)
>
>
> What is most outrageous about this [what? mP], is that Lehmann treats
Heidegger in the
> most objective and positive manner, as if nothing were wrong. He says,
> finally, "The destruction of traditional theology through Heidegger was
shocking,
> obviously; but his conviction that ontology could not be based in the
> traditional theological form, he had already said very clearly in Being and
Time."
> So, he does not find this very objectionable, that theology does not have to
> explain ontology; and, he says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain,
if
> one substitutes for the word Being, the word God.
Well, this is worth putting in a certain con-text (not fully, I need to read
the whole thing -- soon) somewhat left out in the rain by Jud: the whole
paragraph above is not written by Jud, but one Helga Zepp-LaRouche in an
article for the Schiller Institute website, reprinted from the Spring 1995
issue of FIDELIO Magazine, entitled 'Today's ?Conservative Revolution and
the Ideology of the Nazis': The Case of Martin Heidegger'.
She begins her article with:
"Martin Heidegger is generally known among professional philosophers in
academic circles. Many believe that he is the greatest thinker of this
century. Many French philosophers are convinced of it, and many even think
that he is the greatest thinker of all time. (After having tried to read
him, I can tell you that that is a little bit difficult to imagine, because
what he has produced is an incredible amount of gobbledygook.) His work is a
symptom of our present-day confusion"
So, the revelation concerning Lehmann, presumably a Catholic theologian, and
his thinking concerning Heidegger, is revealed by one (IMO) who is too lazy
and ignorant wrt Heidegger to even find anything other than "an incredible
amount of gobbledygook" in his writing. This absence of any genuine critical
stance (one that would bother to read and re-read the works of philosophy as
something necessarily difficult and possibly confusing, especially for
those with singularly diminished imagination and hermeneutical skill or even
desire; one that has always already set out to add her two-pennies'-worth to
the Heidegger-bashing industry). Given her uttermost present-day confusion
(blinded by the {IMO} jealous hatred of Heidegger's thinking, presumably:
it's too difficult for me to understand, thus it must be rubbish out to
insult me, thus I must bash it in order to retain my pride in my self and
have something to say at all costs), it is perhaps reasonable that I find
her characterisation of Heidegger through Lehmann in the quote above
difficult to understand. In particular, the last sentence:
"and, he [Lehmann] says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain, if
one substitutes for the word Being, the word God."
What is this supposed to be saying? [a genuine question]
I find it extremely difficult, in my 'present-day confusion', to render
significance to the statements of a Heidegger 'critic' who begins the way
she does with the statement that all Heidegger wrote was gobbledegook -- one
presumes she must have gobbled up most of it in order to be able to make
such a knowledgable claim, but I would hazard a guess that she did not,
apart from some kind of predatorial key-word speed-reading {i.e., not
reading at all} of the already foretold juicy-bits. If Heidegger indeed
writes nothing but masses of nonsense, then why bother with his thinking as
if it were significant? this surely makes dunces of such 'critics' (to be so
bothering with self-claimed nonsense).
As for the business of substitutions for be-ing: why consider any such
substitutions? Be-ing, if it is anything, is not a thing, is not any thing,
and thus metaphorisation is denied it; be-ing is the uniquely unique and
thus its 'word', "be-ing" can not be the name of any thing, it being the
very possibility for naming and metaphorisation. Of course, one can play the
game of cheery substitutions such as "god", "cause", "consciousness",
"spirit", etc, etc: but that is just unserious wholly metaphysical play.
Whatever game Helga Zepp-LaRouche is playing, it is hard to take seriously
her (obviously pre-determined) conclusions and amassed arguments (although I
could try if anyone wants...) when all she has 'read' of Heidegger, is
masses of "gobbledegook" amounting to "a symptom of our present-day
confusion" [perhaps read "*her* present-day confusion"].
>
> This is EXACTLY what I suggested years ago!
Quite.
>
> Regards,
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> I KNEW I was on the right track!
[but you have never openly questioned it, so you didn't need any validation
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche]
> _http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html_
> (http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html)
>
>
> What is most outrageous about this [what? mP], is that Lehmann treats
Heidegger in the
> most objective and positive manner, as if nothing were wrong. He says,
> finally, "The destruction of traditional theology through Heidegger was
shocking,
> obviously; but his conviction that ontology could not be based in the
> traditional theological form, he had already said very clearly in Being and
Time."
> So, he does not find this very objectionable, that theology does not have to
> explain ontology; and, he says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain,
if
> one substitutes for the word Being, the word God.
Well, this is worth putting in a certain con-text (not fully, I need to read
the whole thing -- soon) somewhat left out in the rain by Jud: the whole
paragraph above is not written by Jud, but one Helga Zepp-LaRouche in an
article for the Schiller Institute website, reprinted from the Spring 1995
issue of FIDELIO Magazine, entitled 'Today's ?Conservative Revolution and
the Ideology of the Nazis': The Case of Martin Heidegger'.
She begins her article with:
"Martin Heidegger is generally known among professional philosophers in
academic circles. Many believe that he is the greatest thinker of this
century. Many French philosophers are convinced of it, and many even think
that he is the greatest thinker of all time. (After having tried to read
him, I can tell you that that is a little bit difficult to imagine, because
what he has produced is an incredible amount of gobbledygook.) His work is a
symptom of our present-day confusion"
So, the revelation concerning Lehmann, presumably a Catholic theologian, and
his thinking concerning Heidegger, is revealed by one (IMO) who is too lazy
and ignorant wrt Heidegger to even find anything other than "an incredible
amount of gobbledygook" in his writing. This absence of any genuine critical
stance (one that would bother to read and re-read the works of philosophy as
something necessarily difficult and possibly confusing, especially for
those with singularly diminished imagination and hermeneutical skill or even
desire; one that has always already set out to add her two-pennies'-worth to
the Heidegger-bashing industry). Given her uttermost present-day confusion
(blinded by the {IMO} jealous hatred of Heidegger's thinking, presumably:
it's too difficult for me to understand, thus it must be rubbish out to
insult me, thus I must bash it in order to retain my pride in my self and
have something to say at all costs), it is perhaps reasonable that I find
her characterisation of Heidegger through Lehmann in the quote above
difficult to understand. In particular, the last sentence:
"and, he [Lehmann] says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain, if
one substitutes for the word Being, the word God."
What is this supposed to be saying? [a genuine question]
I find it extremely difficult, in my 'present-day confusion', to render
significance to the statements of a Heidegger 'critic' who begins the way
she does with the statement that all Heidegger wrote was gobbledegook -- one
presumes she must have gobbled up most of it in order to be able to make
such a knowledgable claim, but I would hazard a guess that she did not,
apart from some kind of predatorial key-word speed-reading {i.e., not
reading at all} of the already foretold juicy-bits. If Heidegger indeed
writes nothing but masses of nonsense, then why bother with his thinking as
if it were significant? this surely makes dunces of such 'critics' (to be so
bothering with self-claimed nonsense).
As for the business of substitutions for be-ing: why consider any such
substitutions? Be-ing, if it is anything, is not a thing, is not any thing,
and thus metaphorisation is denied it; be-ing is the uniquely unique and
thus its 'word', "be-ing" can not be the name of any thing, it being the
very possibility for naming and metaphorisation. Of course, one can play the
game of cheery substitutions such as "god", "cause", "consciousness",
"spirit", etc, etc: but that is just unserious wholly metaphysical play.
Whatever game Helga Zepp-LaRouche is playing, it is hard to take seriously
her (obviously pre-determined) conclusions and amassed arguments (although I
could try if anyone wants...) when all she has 'read' of Heidegger, is
masses of "gobbledegook" amounting to "a symptom of our present-day
confusion" [perhaps read "*her* present-day confusion"].
>
> This is EXACTLY what I suggested years ago!
Quite.
>
> Regards,
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---