Lois, et al. I've been following your discussion with interest, and
wondering whether the old authenticity question (like its little brother,
the "how many Daseins is Cleveland?"-- question) opens onto one of the
real banana peel, prat-fall issues that readers of Heidegger and maybe
even H himself kept slipping on.
Wouldn't it be a fundamental mis-taking of H's project to read
authenticity into a subject who would then "be" in an authentic way?
Isn't B&T itself a meditation on precisely how this kind of subjectivity
is the product of the grounding error of the metaphysical tradition (i.e.
Parmenides formulation Being=beings)? The reason I ask is because H
seems to take on in the works just following B&T the grounding issues of
subjective being (the Transcendental Imagination in the Kant book, and
the Will to Power in the Neitzsche books, for example). And so in
reading H maybe we have to look elsewhere for his deployment of authenticity.
And then your question, Lois, seems to me to need an answer that comes
from somewhere else -- namely, what kind of community does H think his
ontology will found? I think its a hard temptation to resist to read B&T
as a "how to" book -- that's part of the banana peel. In a way Sartre
did it, and when I audited Hubert Dreyfuss's B&T course ten or so years
ago, he was doing it (which in part is why I think he was having so much
trouble getting through the book). This happens because, as somebody
suggested in an earlier discussion I was involved in here, the subject is
probably harder to get rid of than H thought. (That, or something like
it would be Derrida's argument).
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
wondering whether the old authenticity question (like its little brother,
the "how many Daseins is Cleveland?"-- question) opens onto one of the
real banana peel, prat-fall issues that readers of Heidegger and maybe
even H himself kept slipping on.
Wouldn't it be a fundamental mis-taking of H's project to read
authenticity into a subject who would then "be" in an authentic way?
Isn't B&T itself a meditation on precisely how this kind of subjectivity
is the product of the grounding error of the metaphysical tradition (i.e.
Parmenides formulation Being=beings)? The reason I ask is because H
seems to take on in the works just following B&T the grounding issues of
subjective being (the Transcendental Imagination in the Kant book, and
the Will to Power in the Neitzsche books, for example). And so in
reading H maybe we have to look elsewhere for his deployment of authenticity.
And then your question, Lois, seems to me to need an answer that comes
from somewhere else -- namely, what kind of community does H think his
ontology will found? I think its a hard temptation to resist to read B&T
as a "how to" book -- that's part of the banana peel. In a way Sartre
did it, and when I audited Hubert Dreyfuss's B&T course ten or so years
ago, he was doing it (which in part is why I think he was having so much
trouble getting through the book). This happens because, as somebody
suggested in an earlier discussion I was involved in here, the subject is
probably harder to get rid of than H thought. (That, or something like
it would be Derrida's argument).
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------