Hi Stuart, you wrote:
>I don't buy the secular --> religious move in any straight-forward sense.
Well, it's not such a big deal, it's my personal (limited) interpretation
of Heidegger's development. In my opinion, at the time of the mid 20s,
Heidegger's philosophical path is still very open and undecided. SuZ
contains a wealth of germs that could grow and blossom in all kinds of
directions: he could have become a political philosopher or an psycho-
cognition philosopher, a historico-antropological philosopher or even
develop a new philosophy of science. Yet what i see, and again this is
my limited reading of Heidegger (and i envy you having the time and
volumes of the GA at your disposal), is that religious and aesthetical
themes and strategies get the upper hand in his post-war thinking. I've
only recently started with the Beitraege and can't escape the impression
that this is a deeply religious work. I might be wrong here, but i clearly
see some formal parallels with the grand themes of the traditional world
religions, f.e.: the fall [Seinsverfallenheit, Fraglosigkeit, Machenschaft,
Technik] and redemption [andere Ankunft, Zu-kuenftigen]; the creation
[Sprung, Gruendung] and revelation [Ereignis, Seyn]; Deus absconditus
[Seinsvergessenheit]; preparatory thinking [Vorblick, Anklang].
>The 1924 course also seems to me to radically challenge any idea that
>Heidegger was apolitical until the 1930s - it is an incredibly political
>course.
What i had in mind, when i chacterized Heidegger as a-political, were
the concrete skills, the networks, the 'friends' and the money that any
politician needs to survive in the actual political field of day to day
machinations at the party level and with the media. I think Heidegger,
as simple country boy, dearly lacked these cosmopolitan faculties which
made it impossible for him to succeed, or even be taken serious, in the
political context and gremia of the Nazi-regime. I am not acquainted
with the 1924 Aristotle lectures (GA18) but i readily believe that he
had some interesting things to say at the theoretical philosophical level.
Maybe you can tell us some more.
>So, Jan, I wouldn't disagree with the general thrust of what you say, but
>on the specifics it seems the vast amount of material and the ability to
>trace things much more carefully than even a few years ago complicate >any
>such straight-forward chronologies.
Of course i agree and i don't pretend to have any definite interpretations,
answers or insights of Heidegger's oeuvre. Tracing the mind and line of
thought of a creative but obscure philosopher as Heidegger -in his early
ideas, forgotten for years, surfacing later- we learn more about ourself
and our poverty of future. I hope you will stay, and bring your
Wahrnis,you've been absent for far too long.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>I don't buy the secular --> religious move in any straight-forward sense.
Well, it's not such a big deal, it's my personal (limited) interpretation
of Heidegger's development. In my opinion, at the time of the mid 20s,
Heidegger's philosophical path is still very open and undecided. SuZ
contains a wealth of germs that could grow and blossom in all kinds of
directions: he could have become a political philosopher or an psycho-
cognition philosopher, a historico-antropological philosopher or even
develop a new philosophy of science. Yet what i see, and again this is
my limited reading of Heidegger (and i envy you having the time and
volumes of the GA at your disposal), is that religious and aesthetical
themes and strategies get the upper hand in his post-war thinking. I've
only recently started with the Beitraege and can't escape the impression
that this is a deeply religious work. I might be wrong here, but i clearly
see some formal parallels with the grand themes of the traditional world
religions, f.e.: the fall [Seinsverfallenheit, Fraglosigkeit, Machenschaft,
Technik] and redemption [andere Ankunft, Zu-kuenftigen]; the creation
[Sprung, Gruendung] and revelation [Ereignis, Seyn]; Deus absconditus
[Seinsvergessenheit]; preparatory thinking [Vorblick, Anklang].
>The 1924 course also seems to me to radically challenge any idea that
>Heidegger was apolitical until the 1930s - it is an incredibly political
>course.
What i had in mind, when i chacterized Heidegger as a-political, were
the concrete skills, the networks, the 'friends' and the money that any
politician needs to survive in the actual political field of day to day
machinations at the party level and with the media. I think Heidegger,
as simple country boy, dearly lacked these cosmopolitan faculties which
made it impossible for him to succeed, or even be taken serious, in the
political context and gremia of the Nazi-regime. I am not acquainted
with the 1924 Aristotle lectures (GA18) but i readily believe that he
had some interesting things to say at the theoretical philosophical level.
Maybe you can tell us some more.
>So, Jan, I wouldn't disagree with the general thrust of what you say, but
>on the specifics it seems the vast amount of material and the ability to
>trace things much more carefully than even a few years ago complicate >any
>such straight-forward chronologies.
Of course i agree and i don't pretend to have any definite interpretations,
answers or insights of Heidegger's oeuvre. Tracing the mind and line of
thought of a creative but obscure philosopher as Heidegger -in his early
ideas, forgotten for years, surfacing later- we learn more about ourself
and our poverty of future. I hope you will stay, and bring your
Wahrnis,you've been absent for far too long.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---