RE: Eminem mosh - Susskind



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 november 2004 15:57
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Eminem mosh - Susskind


renerecently:

> Michael, you missed my point, as did Ariosto.
> When metaphysics is nihilism, then the refusal of philosophy is at the
> heart of philosophy itself. What people actually think or say, when they
> turn philosophy down, is of no importance. But the sheer fact of refusing
> is the only to be respected they've left - also against their will.
> This is just the price to pay for democracy and equality in philosophy.
> Those who think themselves superior to these anti's really must be
> inferior. There's no oercoming of metaphysics, remember?
>
> rene
> regards

rene, if the sheer fact is all that is important then we do not need to
listen to any anti-philosophers since we already know that the vast majority
of mankind has always rejected or refused philosophy as being the haunt of
madmen (and I do like my philosophers to be mad!); isn't that enough? Do we
really need to listen to the detritus and drivel of self-important ignorant
refusal in order to "respect" the fact of philosophy's overwhelming
dismissal by the overwhelmingly massed masses? I grant you that something
can be learned from the outpourings of such refusal but haven't we heard it
all long ago or on the TV every waking and sleeping hour? If such
outpourings, such excretion were from an interesting artist or activist
(etc), I think it could be revealing, the very fact of it I mean and perhaps
some of the content, but from self-important buffoons...? Heidegger claimed
(and even if he didn't, he showed this time and time again, as did Nietzsche
as did Marx...) that he was not to be regarded as a philosopher (at one
time, rather a philologist {lover of logos}; at another a thinker...), that
his thinking was turned towards the verwindung of philosophy (metaphysics).
But this turning towards (away towards thinking not philosophy)is no way a
simple (or complex) rejection, ignoring or refusal of philosophy (see
'Overcoming Metaphysics' in 'The End of Philosophy'). It's not a matter of
superiority, it's a matter of attempting to think, and those who refuse
philosophy are not at all necessarily meaning to, wanting to or actually
thinking (more likely, idle chattering, self-pleasurising or fucking, etc).
If you just want to respect the fact of refusal of philosophy why not do
just that and be finished and perhaps get on with something else: the
refusal is ubiquitous and we don't need a Jud to display it... unless
there's something else you mean by "respect" and "fact" ;-)

regards

michaelP


Michael, I don't seem to be able to clarify it to
you, despite all that is said re transformation
from subject to Dasein (and back)
One always stands in the most recent light, and
i suddenly, through Jud, saw what H meant with
the quote i already planned to write back to him.

What then do *you* think Heidegger, after talking
about "dealing with Nietzsche" and "adding him to
our Bildung property", without opening up for the
only thought of Nietzsche, means by:

"The unambiguous rejection of all philosophy is an
attitude always deserving respect; for it contains
more of philosophy, than it knows itself."

It's the ending of the first paragraph of the third
part of (my) Nietzsche 1: The will to power as knowledge.

curious
rene









>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
> Verzonden: vrijdag 5 november 2004 14:28
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: Eminem mosh - Susskind
>
>
> rene recently writing to ariosto:
>
>> I rather respect their refusal of philosophy, which is
>> more philosphical than they (can) think, than placing myself higher, but
>> inevitably on the burst ground they're standing on.
>
> rene, I can see what you are referring to in your celebration of those who
> are refuseniks, philosophy-wise, but such refusal ought surely to be
> qualified (e.g., anyone in (Jud's oft-mentioned) the street, down the pub,
> across on the pillow, etc, can simply refuse philosophy, say, in the wake of
> a chat about the weather, ordering another beer, getting on with a good
> fuck, etc); do you mean that it is worth celebrating-supporting the refusal
> of philosophy in the name of, say, thinking? The trouble with refusal and
> rejection of X is that it might only land one in the merely other side of
> the same coin as X and thus be dependent, held in the same sway as X,
> enowned by X. The other side is still only the other side (the side owned by
> other), still sided in relation to an other side, i.e., caught in the same.
> Is this not the biggest danger of a refusal, say, of metaphysics; that those
> who claim to have left such behind are only dragging the eternally rotting
> corpses of the left-behind whilst claiming freedom. As Nietzsche said
> "freedom FOR what?".
>
> regards
>
> michaelP
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

Partial thread listing: