Stuart wrote:
>>In that sense, might it be needful to open up
> a discussion concerning the notion of two heideggers, neither the early/late
> pair, nor the pre-kehre/post-kehre, but one seeking to pietistically
> preserve/recover the metaphysical tradition, the other to
> demolish/deconstruct the same?
>
> Hi Michael and others
>
> This might be interesting. I'm not convinced that any division of
> Heidegger's work is possible - there are changes and modifications of the
> project sure, and Being and Time moves from being something he aimed to
> finish to something he realised he couldn't finish, but every time there are
> suggestions of something being part of one side i think i can see traces on
> the other.
>
> I'm glad Michael wants to exclude the stuff about the Kehre (surely one of
> the biggest Heideggerian red herrings there is) and early/late, but i'm
> equally not convinced by this divide either.
>
> In preparation for a book, i've reread all of Heidegger's books and (re)read
> all the lecture courses in sequence this year. What I found most fascinating
> was both the continuity of concerns and the willingness to think again. It
> seems to me that this complicates any such discussion.
>
> But, this might be interesting to discuss. As above, i am not saying that
> there are no differences, but these are perhaps differences within
> Heidegger, not between Heideggers.
Hi Stuart, yes I agree that there are not literally two but a difference
spun out in the one heidegger's texts; my allusion to two is to highlight
the difference; such a difference goes way beyond heidegger towards the very
future of thinking (and not necessarily philosophy...) and the thinking of
future. I cannot elaborate here (I'm busy with hopefully paid or paying
work) and now but how about I kick off soonish? Or perhaps you could begin?
What's the book?
regards
michaelP
>
> best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>In that sense, might it be needful to open up
> a discussion concerning the notion of two heideggers, neither the early/late
> pair, nor the pre-kehre/post-kehre, but one seeking to pietistically
> preserve/recover the metaphysical tradition, the other to
> demolish/deconstruct the same?
>
> Hi Michael and others
>
> This might be interesting. I'm not convinced that any division of
> Heidegger's work is possible - there are changes and modifications of the
> project sure, and Being and Time moves from being something he aimed to
> finish to something he realised he couldn't finish, but every time there are
> suggestions of something being part of one side i think i can see traces on
> the other.
>
> I'm glad Michael wants to exclude the stuff about the Kehre (surely one of
> the biggest Heideggerian red herrings there is) and early/late, but i'm
> equally not convinced by this divide either.
>
> In preparation for a book, i've reread all of Heidegger's books and (re)read
> all the lecture courses in sequence this year. What I found most fascinating
> was both the continuity of concerns and the willingness to think again. It
> seems to me that this complicates any such discussion.
>
> But, this might be interesting to discuss. As above, i am not saying that
> there are no differences, but these are perhaps differences within
> Heidegger, not between Heideggers.
Hi Stuart, yes I agree that there are not literally two but a difference
spun out in the one heidegger's texts; my allusion to two is to highlight
the difference; such a difference goes way beyond heidegger towards the very
future of thinking (and not necessarily philosophy...) and the thinking of
future. I cannot elaborate here (I'm busy with hopefully paid or paying
work) and now but how about I kick off soonish? Or perhaps you could begin?
What's the book?
regards
michaelP
>
> best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---