I have
been thinking about doubt a lot and its relation to what I would call a
pragmatic skeptical epoche that pauses and abides with questions that seem
to be outstanding.
I think only the specific (metaphysical) determination of thinking as
doubting is what concerns us here and now. It's a doubt that should
lead to the self-assurance of the 'masters and owners of nature' -
Descartes' words, and an indication that not Nietzsche should be blamed
for power. The real beginning of modern times is marked by a necessary
willing of one-self as subject/fundament. (Heidegger, Nietzsche 2, The
dominion of the subject)
I can't understand you. What does doubt have to do with power? And how is it
that it wills oneself as subject/fundament which is what you seem to say. I
am looking at volume two and there is nothing on the dominion of the
subject. My volume two has two parts; one on the ER and the other on "Who is
Niezsche's Zarathustra?".
You have 4 volumes? The original has 2.
The dominion of the subject is a paragraph in "Nietzsche's metaphysics".
I spoke of it a.o. in two mails from 22 and 24 April 2004 (to Anthony),
RE: will to will (nietzsche 2)
yes four as translation of of Heidegger's two volume Nietzsche which apparently came out in four volume hardbound edition? My first of two books contains the first two books of the hardbound edition and it's this :
vol I
1. foreword to all volumes (NI, 9-10 ; these are page numbers to the two volume Nietzsche)
2. "The Will to Power as Art" (NI , 11-254) lecture winter 36-37
vol II
1. "The eternal recurrence of the same" (NI 255-472) lecture summer 37
2. "Who is Nietzsche's Zarathustra" Vortrage und Aufsatze pp. 101-26
My second book is :
vol III
1. "The will to power as knowledge " (NI, 473-658) lecture summer 39
2. "The Eterenal recurence of the same as the will to power" two concluding lectures never delivered and written in 39 (NII, 7-29)
3. "Nietzsche's metaphysics" typescript dated aug-dec 40 (NII, 257-333)
vol IV
1. "European Nihilism" lecture course trimester 40 (NII, 31-256)
2. "NIhilism as determined ny the history of being" (NII, 335-398)
My suggestion is that you use NI or NII plus page number so I can see where you are.
I assumed you had read this text or a similar one, the last part of H's
Schelling, for instance. Without it, it makes no sense to discuss
subjectivity in modern times.
I'm busy reading Nietzsche and thinking of future thoughts. That last post on "incubation" was interesting. THAT seems like the Nietzsche I know because that seems to point to what in English translation Nietzsche calls a "distended will". There is the sense of an inflating swelling that points to a Dasein at its ownmost possibility. As you wrote about incubation there it sounded like it was an insight for you. I would follow that "aha, eureka moment" so to speak since it is founded on who you appreciate the most ie. Nietzsche, Juenger, Heidegger; -- and make it yours.
Modern times is the begining of what? Egocentric selfishness? Or a complete
blindness of a a network of intentional rays of thoughts that prevent one
from seeing the world around them? Before the modern is what? People living
in te truth? I doubt it. Epictetus shows often example of how we are caught
in iilusory thoughts or appearances that betwitch us and prevent us from
being present and paying attention to whatever surrounds us. I wonder Rene
if the issue is not perhaps the nature of the imagination and its role with
memory and will and some kind of processing that projects a screen that
prevents us seeing things as they are.
Te risk that i point to is that 'subjective' positions are still doing,
copying this, while now other is needed. Heidegger shows that only
Nietzsche's (metaphysics of) will-to-power explains the ongoing
blindness
and lying as necessary asylums of the modern 'Mischmasch' human, that is
so easily mislead, that 99% agreed that black is in fact white.
(the supporters of presidential authority)
Imo Niezsche helps certainly but there are many others who helps through
illusion and ignorance. Heidegger was stuck in his own cultural context. He
sounds so limited today where the clash of cultures and ideas from the whole
world is so intense. It's a question of who's memory will survive in the
end. I like the chances of Lao Tzu and Heraclitus.
I stay with my approach. I think, if you would read the texts meant, you
would stop talking and comparing like you do now.
I'm always there to discuss Heidegger's works.
Stay with your approach I think you could follow up all the ways of incubation because that is a cultivation of possibility and the innovative artistic approach if not that of critics. The compare and constrasts thing well that's a complicated issue that those of us who live in different cultural contexts as if on the border between the same and the other have to deal with. I like writing a patchwork, mishmash gulash, outsider schibolleth. It's must be barbaric to a pure European like you but that's us rough Americans and our pioneering spirit and mosaic. The textual evidence suggests that Scopenhauer and Nietzsche represent the first flowering of what N calls "European Buddhism" or "European Nihilism". I'm not *forcing* my own ways here or creating a confusing mishmash. It's already there in Schop and N Rene. That Heidegger when it comes to thinking of Nihilism only sees a purely Platonic context is his blindness to the real richness and variety of the texts in question. One of the great issues in philosophy as I keep showing is trying to come to terms with a kind of emptyness or non-being. When Holderlin or Nietzsche talk about the death of God, it is assumed that we are working through a sense of absence of what we take to be valuable in our lives. It's the distress of Heidegger's contributions that's a key or mode of attunement that prepares us for an unexpected Ereignis. Nietzsche says the problem is we feel pity and avoid just letting the subject be brokendown and ripped apart as a invigorating stimulant to life that's what "undergoing" means as Zarathustra's path. It's about letting a tragic situation be. Honesty and intelligence demands that we question Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche. We no longer live in a European context. It's a different world than the one Heidegger lived in. One that is richer in perspectives because there is a constant interference from other philosophies that are not of European origin that some of us live with today and so did Schop and Nietzsche. Wether you like it or not these guys are part of Western Dharma. Life is funny Rene when you are intellectually honest ;-). I'm responding to the truth Rene. This is responsibility; -- to be true to the textual evidence and not a Guru's interpretation just because he is supposed to be a big shot philosopher. I say the the thread on incubation is on the way to real truth and faith in your own way as your own way. I'll coach you Rene ;-).
Okay let's bracket the truth.
For Heidegger Nietzsche's 'basic' position in NI chapter 14 called "Rapture as Aesthetic State" is amount to a conflict between two antithetical directions: "art as countermovement to nihilism and art as object of physiology" . Now he says , " If a unity prevails here, eventuating from the essence of art itself as Nietzsche sees it, an if art is a configuration of will to power, then insight into the possibility of unity between the antithetical determinations should provide us with a higher concept of the essence of will to power. That is the goal of our presentation of the major teachings of Nietzsche's aesthetics."
That's it here is start on N's 'major' teachings bracket off the 'little' teachings for incubators and volcanoes and damms and others overflowing with life.
tympan
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---