Re: authenticity again

On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Christopher Stewart Morrissey wrote:

> 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.

I've always been curious about this authentic/inauthentic Heidegger
business. How do we know which is which? The usual "argument" is,
"Whatever I like in Heidegger is the authentic one; whatever I don't like
is the inauthentic." Do you have a better criterion? I'd like to hear it.

And why would we assign "what he has not yet thought" to Heidegger,
rather than say, Derrida?

About this philosopher-king "baloney". Heidegger appears to offer a
philosopher-king "baloney", a poet-king (presumably also "baloney"), and
just a plain old king (that would be Herr Hitler). Then there is his
Being-king. Any preferences?

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: