Re: authenticity again


> I agree that Heidegger "valued" being a philosopher (or a "thinker", if
> you will) above all else as far as this was his chosen path. So what?
> He's not insulting non-thinkers and non-poets by doing this. You're not
> insulting me by being you and not being me. :-)

Where did 'insults' come into this? I don't feel insulted by Heidegger,
or feel that he insulted those who spoke he pejoratively of (if he did).
One can be pejorative, I think, without being insulting. I might refer,
for example, to my misreading of Heidegger with pejorative language without
being 'insulting.' I am not insulted by Heidegger.

What is interesting to me, however, is the way in which these values seem
to slip surrepticiously into his ontology. In my reading of him, he was
quite original in doing this. I think it lends his ontology a power to
inspire, as well as elucidate, and has something to do with the enthusiasm
that he sometimes wins from his readers. I read him as blending moral
imperative with ontology and that this sort of blending was carried
further by Sartre, at least. I recently re-read Hegel's Phenomenology,
and I must say I don't really see this moral imperative there, either.
Hegel's Absolute has a different function. In my conversation with
Heideggerian scholars, I find that they disagree on this issue. I was
hoping to ignite a reasoned debate.

But please don't read me as complaining about Heidegger. I find him
quite remarkable. As someone else said here recently, I am trying to
understand him.

..Lois Shawver


--- from list [email protected] ---

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

Partial thread listing: