Re: peasant shoes

On Jonathan Maskit's post:

With respect to shoes, there are a number of them in the Origin of the
Work of Art. It may be, as has been argued, that the shoes Van Gogh
painted were his own, or not even a pair. But when Heidegger first
broaches the story of the peasant woman walking down a path, he is
presenting a "case" that need not refer back to the painting. And I
quoted only the section that referred to the shoes as equipment, and
not to their representation in a painting -- by Van Gogh or anyone
else. So I think it is immaterial to the point I was making about
authenticity whether the "painted shoes only work at showing a world

With respect to the artwork, I do not think that Heidegger is intent
on addressing any world opened up by artwork; rather the artwork
reveals Being, in the sense that the truth of the artwork is the truth
of Being. What is interesting about his approaching the existentiality
(or Being) of the shoes through the painting is the suggestion that
the sense of Being that concerns him can be approached only through a
representation, and a particular kind at that.

Finally, with respect to "human reality;" yes, it translates "realite
humaine," which was the way Corbin originally translated Dasein into
French. But Sartre did not have anything to do with that, and
Derrida's association of him with it (in The ends of Man) just doesn't
hold up. In BN, Sartre spends a considerable amount of time
differentiating his notion of human reality from Dasein. He argues
that the two notions have different sources and complexities, and
states that he thinks Dasein is an "empoverished" notion. So for
Sartre, one does not translate the other at all. (See BN, xlviii,
17-19, 73)

Steve Martinot

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: