I don't usually check my email on the weekends, so Monday morning I'm hit
with a barrage of messages, half of them from the Heidegger list! So many
things going on there now, let me pitch a few pennies into the pond:
1) I'm glad Tom and I seem to be on the same page regarding truth.
2) Lois was asking about what kind of interpretation I'm giving. I'm
wondering: what do you mean by a "metaphysical" one, as opposed to other
kinds? Also, I guess I'm too brainwashed by Gadamer & Co. to think in terms
of getting Heidegger (or anyone else) "right" according to what he MEANT,
his intentions, etc. I'm just trying to make the most sense out of H. FOR
ME that I can given what I've read. What is the other option? (This would
bring us into the important debate about how hermeneutics can have standards
for interpretation, so I think it's good you brought it up. I would refer
anyone to Georgia Warnke's Gadamer book on that question, BTW. )
3) On the "personal part" of one of Tom's notes: it struck me that, as
you all recall I'm sure, one of the most famous--and
productive--mis-readings of H. on authenticity is Sartre's "bad and good
faith." (This was on my mind having just written a piece on, believe it or
not, Sartre and street gangs, and also Richard Rorty approvingly mentions
Satrean ethics in a nice piece in the latest NEW REPUBLIC that reviews
Feyerabend's autobiography--did you know he was an officer in the German
army in WWII? BTW, if you want, the NEW REPUBLIC is on the web and you
could get the review online for free.) At any rate, the way the problematic
was always presented to me was one of Sartre in the resistance (he was, as I
recall, a minor courier, after imprisonment) wondering why some people break
down under torture and some don't. Everyone was wondering how THEY would
hold up. For S, the inauthentic bad faith move is to say "they made me
tell" because, it seems, there was always that millisecond longer you could
have held out, so it was YOU that made the choice. Very rigid on
responsibility! Authenticity has a lot to do with owning up to your own
responsibility for the choice, in all areas of life. There's a heck of a
lot more to be said here, of course, but I'll wait to see if this line of
inquiry resonates at all; it's certainly a way, a la Tom B., of tying
authenticity and violence together (though the torture example is just that,
an example, of a more general phenomenon).
4) I don't think we're "glued" on BT! :-)
David
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
David Blacker
Illinois State University
djblacke@xxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
with a barrage of messages, half of them from the Heidegger list! So many
things going on there now, let me pitch a few pennies into the pond:
1) I'm glad Tom and I seem to be on the same page regarding truth.
2) Lois was asking about what kind of interpretation I'm giving. I'm
wondering: what do you mean by a "metaphysical" one, as opposed to other
kinds? Also, I guess I'm too brainwashed by Gadamer & Co. to think in terms
of getting Heidegger (or anyone else) "right" according to what he MEANT,
his intentions, etc. I'm just trying to make the most sense out of H. FOR
ME that I can given what I've read. What is the other option? (This would
bring us into the important debate about how hermeneutics can have standards
for interpretation, so I think it's good you brought it up. I would refer
anyone to Georgia Warnke's Gadamer book on that question, BTW. )
3) On the "personal part" of one of Tom's notes: it struck me that, as
you all recall I'm sure, one of the most famous--and
productive--mis-readings of H. on authenticity is Sartre's "bad and good
faith." (This was on my mind having just written a piece on, believe it or
not, Sartre and street gangs, and also Richard Rorty approvingly mentions
Satrean ethics in a nice piece in the latest NEW REPUBLIC that reviews
Feyerabend's autobiography--did you know he was an officer in the German
army in WWII? BTW, if you want, the NEW REPUBLIC is on the web and you
could get the review online for free.) At any rate, the way the problematic
was always presented to me was one of Sartre in the resistance (he was, as I
recall, a minor courier, after imprisonment) wondering why some people break
down under torture and some don't. Everyone was wondering how THEY would
hold up. For S, the inauthentic bad faith move is to say "they made me
tell" because, it seems, there was always that millisecond longer you could
have held out, so it was YOU that made the choice. Very rigid on
responsibility! Authenticity has a lot to do with owning up to your own
responsibility for the choice, in all areas of life. There's a heck of a
lot more to be said here, of course, but I'll wait to see if this line of
inquiry resonates at all; it's certainly a way, a la Tom B., of tying
authenticity and violence together (though the torture example is just that,
an example, of a more general phenomenon).
4) I don't think we're "glued" on BT! :-)
David
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
David Blacker
Illinois State University
djblacke@xxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------