> 1931, but I just read it). There is one authentic type of human being:
> the philosopher. Not just any philosopher, though. Heidegger. He's
> generous enough to include Holderlin. The rest of us are slaves.
Heidegger talks about authenticity, but where does he talk about
authentic "types" of people? I think you're misreading him.
> is to question being itself. Only then are we authentically what we are,
> that is human, the being that CAN understand being. And gee, guess who
> fits that description?
"Inauthentic" is not supposed to be pejorative. Heidegger makes this
clear in the SS 1927 "Basic Problems of Phenomenology" lectures. (I
mention this because I happen to be rereading them.)
To dismiss Heidegger is just as superficial as to champion him.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
> the philosopher. Not just any philosopher, though. Heidegger. He's
> generous enough to include Holderlin. The rest of us are slaves.
Heidegger talks about authenticity, but where does he talk about
authentic "types" of people? I think you're misreading him.
> is to question being itself. Only then are we authentically what we are,
> that is human, the being that CAN understand being. And gee, guess who
> fits that description?
"Inauthentic" is not supposed to be pejorative. Heidegger makes this
clear in the SS 1927 "Basic Problems of Phenomenology" lectures. (I
mention this because I happen to be rereading them.)
To dismiss Heidegger is just as superficial as to champion him.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------