Hi Stuart, you wrote:
>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.
Maybe it is not so much a question of continuity, but more of unity.
I think it's quite possible and legitimate to show some obvious dis-
continuities in Heidegger's life and works. One of the most clear and
outstanding differences between Heidegger's pre-war and the post-war
writings is his change in style. Where SuZ is composed as a very sharp
systematical and secular analysis of human existence, the later works
show a completely different stylistic image: short lectures, letters and
dialogues, and the almost aforistic style of the Beitraege: so it seems
we are dealing here with two completely different genres. Yet if we
take a look at the contents of the post-war oeuvre i also see a distinct
change of themes and reinterpretations of terms in his later philosophy.
One of this fundamental shifts (or turns) that i see as most pregnant and
definite, is his radical transformation of secular dimensions into meta-
religious dimensions: f.e. the secular interpretation of temporatilty and
finity in Da-sein [cf. SuZ] becomes the meta-religious interpretation of
temporatilty and finity of Seyn [cf. BzP]. (This btw. shows clearly that
the equation "Sein = God", as was recently triumphantically claimed,
is nonsense, because God is by definition eternal and infinite, whereas
Heidegger's Sein [Seyn] is temporal and finite.) Another example of
Heidegger's shift from secular to meta-religious considerations is his
understanding of the phenomenon of language. In SuZ, language gets
no special attention or treatment, it is conceived as a 'given' faculty
when we're factually thrown (Geworfen) into a 'linguistic' community.
The later Heidegger however, occupied by the questions of "Seyns
Geschichte" and "Seinsverlassenheit", sees clearly that language must
not be understood as something purely human, i.e. a human invention
or individual property, but as a historical call and poetic revelation.
To think that we humans master or possess the power of language, is
in fact an act of regression, in obliviousness of the secret and sacred.
According to UzS we are not a speaking but a hearing and listening
family, always underway to, forwards and backwards, unknown but
fascinating new territories: "von Sage und Sein, Wort und Ding zu-
rueck. Beide, Dichten und Denken, sind ein ausgezeichnets Sagen,
insofern sie dem Geheimnis des Wortes als ihrem Denkwuerdigsten
ueberantwortet und dadurch seit je in die Verwantschaft miteinander
verfugt bleiben." [UzS:238]
Another and major breach in Heidegger's course of life is, of course,
his engagement with the Nazi-regime and its illusion of a Hitleristic
revolution. In the years 1933-1936 Heidegger, in fact a simple rural
and very a-political man, suddenly became a political agitator. (Yes
Jud, i wholly agree with you on this, but he was no camp brute !) But
how to explain this ??? One thing is certain for me here, and that is
that 'black and white' arguments don't hold. I have talked a lot about
the war with my father and if one thing becomes really clear it's that
there was no time and place then to consider or contemplate about
one's mistakes and misjudgements, because the fear and the speed of
time made reality into mythology.
But what then is the unity in Heidegger's thinking ? I have no easy
answers here, but two things seem obvious to me: first is his 'anti-
scientific' attitude, his deep criticism of the western mathematico-
technological developments and second his meta-religious visions.
I call them *meta-religious*, because Heidegger's 'new religion' is
a religion without God, a devine realm without transcendence, an
immanent sphere of godly and humanly, that have not arrived yet, awaiting
you .... where were you ... where are you ?
you,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>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.
Maybe it is not so much a question of continuity, but more of unity.
I think it's quite possible and legitimate to show some obvious dis-
continuities in Heidegger's life and works. One of the most clear and
outstanding differences between Heidegger's pre-war and the post-war
writings is his change in style. Where SuZ is composed as a very sharp
systematical and secular analysis of human existence, the later works
show a completely different stylistic image: short lectures, letters and
dialogues, and the almost aforistic style of the Beitraege: so it seems
we are dealing here with two completely different genres. Yet if we
take a look at the contents of the post-war oeuvre i also see a distinct
change of themes and reinterpretations of terms in his later philosophy.
One of this fundamental shifts (or turns) that i see as most pregnant and
definite, is his radical transformation of secular dimensions into meta-
religious dimensions: f.e. the secular interpretation of temporatilty and
finity in Da-sein [cf. SuZ] becomes the meta-religious interpretation of
temporatilty and finity of Seyn [cf. BzP]. (This btw. shows clearly that
the equation "Sein = God", as was recently triumphantically claimed,
is nonsense, because God is by definition eternal and infinite, whereas
Heidegger's Sein [Seyn] is temporal and finite.) Another example of
Heidegger's shift from secular to meta-religious considerations is his
understanding of the phenomenon of language. In SuZ, language gets
no special attention or treatment, it is conceived as a 'given' faculty
when we're factually thrown (Geworfen) into a 'linguistic' community.
The later Heidegger however, occupied by the questions of "Seyns
Geschichte" and "Seinsverlassenheit", sees clearly that language must
not be understood as something purely human, i.e. a human invention
or individual property, but as a historical call and poetic revelation.
To think that we humans master or possess the power of language, is
in fact an act of regression, in obliviousness of the secret and sacred.
According to UzS we are not a speaking but a hearing and listening
family, always underway to, forwards and backwards, unknown but
fascinating new territories: "von Sage und Sein, Wort und Ding zu-
rueck. Beide, Dichten und Denken, sind ein ausgezeichnets Sagen,
insofern sie dem Geheimnis des Wortes als ihrem Denkwuerdigsten
ueberantwortet und dadurch seit je in die Verwantschaft miteinander
verfugt bleiben." [UzS:238]
Another and major breach in Heidegger's course of life is, of course,
his engagement with the Nazi-regime and its illusion of a Hitleristic
revolution. In the years 1933-1936 Heidegger, in fact a simple rural
and very a-political man, suddenly became a political agitator. (Yes
Jud, i wholly agree with you on this, but he was no camp brute !) But
how to explain this ??? One thing is certain for me here, and that is
that 'black and white' arguments don't hold. I have talked a lot about
the war with my father and if one thing becomes really clear it's that
there was no time and place then to consider or contemplate about
one's mistakes and misjudgements, because the fear and the speed of
time made reality into mythology.
But what then is the unity in Heidegger's thinking ? I have no easy
answers here, but two things seem obvious to me: first is his 'anti-
scientific' attitude, his deep criticism of the western mathematico-
technological developments and second his meta-religious visions.
I call them *meta-religious*, because Heidegger's 'new religion' is
a religion without God, a devine realm without transcendence, an
immanent sphere of godly and humanly, that have not arrived yet, awaiting
you .... where were you ... where are you ?
you,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---