Michael
I can see what you mean about the difference between language and approach,
although they are of course intertwined.
I don't think i said that B&T was destruction in any simple sense - of
course it is also Abbau, unbuilding, or as Derrida constructively
translated, de-con-struction. So i'd agree with you entirely on this, i
think he also says something about this in the Plato's Sophist course that i
found helpful, something about the layers of interpretation that need to be
peeled back.
>I suggest that this tension
exists all throughout heidegger's thinking and is not analysable in terms of
any chronological logic (periodisation), rather, in terms of the way even a
single text slips within its own folds of difference.
this seems, again, preferable to a chrono-logic
not sure we really disagree that much on this at least
Stuart
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I can see what you mean about the difference between language and approach,
although they are of course intertwined.
I don't think i said that B&T was destruction in any simple sense - of
course it is also Abbau, unbuilding, or as Derrida constructively
translated, de-con-struction. So i'd agree with you entirely on this, i
think he also says something about this in the Plato's Sophist course that i
found helpful, something about the layers of interpretation that need to be
peeled back.
>I suggest that this tension
exists all throughout heidegger's thinking and is not analysable in terms of
any chronological logic (periodisation), rather, in terms of the way even a
single text slips within its own folds of difference.
this seems, again, preferable to a chrono-logic
not sure we really disagree that much on this at least
Stuart
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---