Heidegger and Sartre

>
> Steve Martinot writes: .
> .
> .
> But BN was already written; and that is where Sartre
>lays out his philosophy. In EH, he is giving a political spiel.
>Though the political commentators might take Sartre up on his
>words in EH, that hardly befits a philosopher of Heidegger's
>stature. And there is nowhere in BN that Sartre says "existence
>precedes essence" (if there is, I seriously missed it). Heidegger
>is right in his critique of the metaphysics of the notion of
>"precedence;" but he is not speaking of the philosophical Sartre
>when he addresses that slogan, and thus raises Sartre's tactical
>political text to the level of a principled philosophical
>treatise. I mean, if I'm going to do a critique of a book, should
>I restrict myself to what the author has written on the dust
>cover as part of an attempt to sell the book? But that is what
>Heidegger did.
>
> I recall an article somewhere by Joan Stambaugh (I think) published
as a Eulogy after Heidegger's death where she recalls a
conversation where H admitted to her that he had never
read Sartre's Being and Nothingness.
>.
> Lawrence Casse
>.
>



--- from list [email protected] ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: