On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Boris Blaha wrote:
> Hello,
Hello.
> some question to the list. Margaret Canovan has written in her new book o=
n=20
> Hannah Arendt, that the =BBstep from Heidegger=B4s philosophy to Arendt=
=B4s is=20
> much shorter than one might expect=AB. What do you think about this thesi=
s and=20
> about Arendt=B4s and Heidegger=B4s understanding an revitalising of the=
=20
> *republican tradition*, especially after the events from 1989 ?
> Boris Blaha
The short distance is surprising only to one who wouldn't be familiar with=
=20
Heidegger's writings on technology. It comes as little surprise to hear=20
such arch-deconstructionists as Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy falling back=20
upon an Arendtian notion precisely because they follow Heidegger in his=20
understanding of technology. More or less, she translates Heidegger's=20
thought into the language of economics, which is important because=20
Heidegger includes politics as part of technology, whereas Arendt kept=20
them distinct.
As for using Heidegger as part of an effort to revitalize the republican=20
tradition, I would only say that you have set a lot of work in front of=20
you to bridge the gap, if such is your intention. Actually, the same=20
would go for Arendt, because pluralism and traditional republicanism have=
=20
strong tensions that are not easy to resolve.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------