Re: authenticity again

> 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.
Har! Yeah, that's about it. But if we want to go further than that, how
we just focus on what we all like about Heidegger and what we all hate?

> And why would we assign "what he has not yet thought" to Heidegger,
> rather than say, Derrida?
I guess because Heidegger made Derrida possible?

> 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?
Har! Yeah, something for everyone in Heidegger. A secret of his
popularity? :-) I guess the only one I don't like is Hitler; all the
other kings are fine choices for neurotic academics. But succumbing to
any of the baloney just makes you a Heideggerian. Who needs that?

Anyway, so do you think there's a way to interpret Heidegger such that
moments of authenticity are available to everyone, not just philosophers?


--- from list [email protected] ---

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

Partial thread listing: