rene:
> 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
rene, I simply doubt he means *any* kind of rejection of philosophy, rather
one oriented towards an other kind of thinking, or thinking (not just
cogitating) per se (in the sense elborated in the Contributions and
elsewhere). And, OK, I can not but agree that this rejection is something
the one *receiving/reading* rather than gifting the rejection can think the
unthought in, but surely one does not need any, just any rejection of
philosophy to receive the gift of the unthought. Heidegger himself only (to
my reading) employed/translated/interpreted the unthought of other
philosophers and thinkers/poets, not just any old writing? I can not but
agree that it can show something worthwhile to dis-cover the unthought in
any display of articulation, so why nonetheless did not Heidegger by example
read just as deeply the scribblings of any old tabloidal rubbish? He read
Aristotle, Parmenides, Hegel, Nietzsche, Juenger... not Enid Blyton.
But you've guided me on to the necessity of reading the wider context of
your quote (which when I read it first I could not have hoorayed more).
Thanks.
Is there not an issue of discrimination, rene? Given the ubiquitousness of
the un- or anti-philosophical?
regards
michaelP
ps: for Jud, since you'll be reading this -- I employed the word "fuck"
recently not in a gratuitous swearing insulting exclamatory sense but in its
perfectly correct sense of 'to have sexual intercourse' (as almost anyone
could see from the context).
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> 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
rene, I simply doubt he means *any* kind of rejection of philosophy, rather
one oriented towards an other kind of thinking, or thinking (not just
cogitating) per se (in the sense elborated in the Contributions and
elsewhere). And, OK, I can not but agree that this rejection is something
the one *receiving/reading* rather than gifting the rejection can think the
unthought in, but surely one does not need any, just any rejection of
philosophy to receive the gift of the unthought. Heidegger himself only (to
my reading) employed/translated/interpreted the unthought of other
philosophers and thinkers/poets, not just any old writing? I can not but
agree that it can show something worthwhile to dis-cover the unthought in
any display of articulation, so why nonetheless did not Heidegger by example
read just as deeply the scribblings of any old tabloidal rubbish? He read
Aristotle, Parmenides, Hegel, Nietzsche, Juenger... not Enid Blyton.
But you've guided me on to the necessity of reading the wider context of
your quote (which when I read it first I could not have hoorayed more).
Thanks.
Is there not an issue of discrimination, rene? Given the ubiquitousness of
the un- or anti-philosophical?
regards
michaelP
ps: for Jud, since you'll be reading this -- I employed the word "fuck"
recently not in a gratuitous swearing insulting exclamatory sense but in its
perfectly correct sense of 'to have sexual intercourse' (as almost anyone
could see from the context).
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---