Stuart,
John Van Buren, whom i've found useful, points out a trajectory passing
thru dialogue with a series of thinkers but mainly from the
being-in-the-world of the pauline/lutheran via crucis, culminating logically
in his own political activism, to the withdrawal-of-being and ineffable
essences, ...a place, thematique<>logique, pari passu, not unlike
wittgenstein. Do i take it you credit this not at all?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Elden" <stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: anti or antique heidegger?
> Some interesting stuff on this.
>
> I think that the Beitraege and other works like it (Besinnung etc.) need
to
> be seen as another layer above/beneath the lecture courses and other works
> of the late 1930s. Some of the lectures - most of them even - are not that
> different to ones of earlier periods in style: The Hoelderlin ones are
> perhaps the exception. As Heidegger says in the Letter on Humanism, he is
> trying to find another language than that of metaphysics, but that this
> remains in the background of published works. Equally compare Age of the
> World Picture to the Beitraege - some of the phrases are almost exactly
the
> same, but the published text is largely in a different style.
>
> I don't therefore think this is a simple divide: he was working on one
form
> of writing while most of his (visible) output was still of the same style.
> Equally the themes: much of what the Beitraege covers is only made public
> much later, but that doesn't mean he changed to it suddenly. Equally there
> are some interesting indications: the Beitraege was probably begun in 1932
> (when Heidegger was on sabbatical), and in 1943 or 1944 he requested
another
> sabbatical to try to 'finish' some of this work.
>
> I don't buy the secular --> religious move in any straight-forward sense.
> The terms in SuZ are forged out of two main furnaces - Christian thought
and
> Aristotle. They undergo radical changes, but I don't think it makes sense
to
> overplay this, at least, _as I keep stressing_ in any straight-forward
> sense.
>
> Language is treated in detail in summer semester 1924 (GA18) for example,
> and although neglected perhaps in SuZ rests on a much deeper analysis (see
> also GA17 and GA19). There it is very much a call and destiny; and the
> notion of listening/hearing is central (also there in muted form in SuZ).
> 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.
>
> I'd agree with the question of the mathematical-technological issues being
> central: there are distinct relations between work of (say) 1924-25 and
1936
> and later. But they too undergo quite important changes.
>
> As before, I am not saying there are no distinctions or moves in
Heidegger's
> work, but that it doesn't make sense to me to see them as clearly
distinct.
> It's a thought always in progress, that undergoes some quite profound
> transformations (only idiots and dogmatists never change their mind:
> Lefebvre, Russell and Keynes all said interesting things about this). But
> this doesn't mean that any simplistic Heidegger I and II (Richardson), pre
> and post-Kehre Heidegger, A and B, etc. makes sense.
>
> 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.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
John Van Buren, whom i've found useful, points out a trajectory passing
thru dialogue with a series of thinkers but mainly from the
being-in-the-world of the pauline/lutheran via crucis, culminating logically
in his own political activism, to the withdrawal-of-being and ineffable
essences, ...a place, thematique<>logique, pari passu, not unlike
wittgenstein. Do i take it you credit this not at all?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Elden" <stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: anti or antique heidegger?
> Some interesting stuff on this.
>
> I think that the Beitraege and other works like it (Besinnung etc.) need
to
> be seen as another layer above/beneath the lecture courses and other works
> of the late 1930s. Some of the lectures - most of them even - are not that
> different to ones of earlier periods in style: The Hoelderlin ones are
> perhaps the exception. As Heidegger says in the Letter on Humanism, he is
> trying to find another language than that of metaphysics, but that this
> remains in the background of published works. Equally compare Age of the
> World Picture to the Beitraege - some of the phrases are almost exactly
the
> same, but the published text is largely in a different style.
>
> I don't therefore think this is a simple divide: he was working on one
form
> of writing while most of his (visible) output was still of the same style.
> Equally the themes: much of what the Beitraege covers is only made public
> much later, but that doesn't mean he changed to it suddenly. Equally there
> are some interesting indications: the Beitraege was probably begun in 1932
> (when Heidegger was on sabbatical), and in 1943 or 1944 he requested
another
> sabbatical to try to 'finish' some of this work.
>
> I don't buy the secular --> religious move in any straight-forward sense.
> The terms in SuZ are forged out of two main furnaces - Christian thought
and
> Aristotle. They undergo radical changes, but I don't think it makes sense
to
> overplay this, at least, _as I keep stressing_ in any straight-forward
> sense.
>
> Language is treated in detail in summer semester 1924 (GA18) for example,
> and although neglected perhaps in SuZ rests on a much deeper analysis (see
> also GA17 and GA19). There it is very much a call and destiny; and the
> notion of listening/hearing is central (also there in muted form in SuZ).
> 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.
>
> I'd agree with the question of the mathematical-technological issues being
> central: there are distinct relations between work of (say) 1924-25 and
1936
> and later. But they too undergo quite important changes.
>
> As before, I am not saying there are no distinctions or moves in
Heidegger's
> work, but that it doesn't make sense to me to see them as clearly
distinct.
> It's a thought always in progress, that undergoes some quite profound
> transformations (only idiots and dogmatists never change their mind:
> Lefebvre, Russell and Keynes all said interesting things about this). But
> this doesn't mean that any simplistic Heidegger I and II (Richardson), pre
> and post-Kehre Heidegger, A and B, etc. makes sense.
>
> 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.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---