Re: Ereignis; A good commentary found



On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, mitch wrote:

> 1. D. F. Krell translates the word "Ereignis/ereignen" as "propriates". This
> word was concealed by all dictionaries to which I turned for a definition. I
> assume that ereigenis is related to the root "eigen" and to the word eigenlicht
> keit [i don't know any german ], but i still don't exactly understand what MH
> is doing with this term and why Krell translates it as "propriates". My guess
> would be that "propriates" somehow describes the process through which Being
> manifests itself to Dasein such that Dasein can inhabit Being as its own,
> proper environment; this is to distinguished from Authenticity in which Dasein
> uses his own initiative to grasp Being as its own, proper Being. Does this
> seem like an appropriate appropriation of "propriation" or can someone shed
> some light on that which still remains concealed in my revealing?

Joan Stambaugh offers "appropriative Event", which Otto Poeggeler uses
when he writes in english. Krell is suggesting the connection (in
latinate languages) between proper/propre (own) and eigen, the german
word for own (as in one's own). Heidegger himself suggests this as early
as 1919, when he writes "Er-eignen", to make it one's own. The normal
word "sich ereignen" means to occur; the nominative of this verb,
"Ereignis", means event, in the sense of a "grosse Ereignis" or big
event. Thus Stambaugh's "appropriative Event" for "Er-eignis."

> 2. for the past few weeks, i have been trying to teach myself The Later
> Heidegger. if you are finding yourself completely lost in the overpowering
> morass of jargon, I would suggest checking out William J Richardson, S. J.'s
> book _Heidegger : Through Phenomenology to Thought_. He provides blow-by-
> blow plot summaries of each of MH's later works in that readable, clear-think
> ing style for which our Jesuit friends are so reknowned.
>
> 3. I have been reading much much too much of The Later Heidegger much much too
> quickly. It seems really repetitive, liking he's hitting on the same themes
> and using the same type of argument again and again. is this right? does it
> relate somehow to MH's schpiel about how the self same ideas are repeated
> through their differences [an idea which i can't yet really distinguish from
> Hegel]?

Yes, he tends to repeat himself. A product perhaps of the fact that so
many of his later writings were talks and speeches he gave at different
times to different people, and also his contention that great thinkers
think only one great thought - certainly an accurate self-description at
any rate. Whether Plato or Nietzsche thought only one thought is
questionable. Also, most people who think they are right tend to repeat
themselves, because why find something else to say when one is already
saying the most important thing?


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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

Partial thread listing: