Re: authenticity again

> 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.
Haven't a clue what this "moral imperative" in Heidegger is. If you mean
the fantasy some people have about being among the chosen few who dare to
think the Seinsfrage (everyone else being blind slaves), so what? So what
if there's a deluded Heidegger club, even if it included Heidegger
himself in his weaker moments (anyone with talent is exposed to this
temptation)? The authentic Heidegger is Heidegger at his best and at what
he has not yet thought. The inauthentic Heidegger is, among other things,
this philosopher king baloney.

> 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.
Me too. But how can you understand him by reducing everything he
says to, "Gee, that Heidegger thought he was hot stuff" ?

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: