Christopher Rickey wrote:
>It is not "They" who are responsible, as if the
>world were under the thrall of some internationalist conspiracy or
>another, but no one. A very, very similar articulation can one find in
>certain writings of Karl Marx, who attributes quite a causal effect to
>something called capital - NOT capitalists - but capital. The problem
>with capital is that it controls everyone without regard to the human
>good; in short, no one is in control. This is the very problem: if no
>one is in control, how do we get control? Marx: proletariat revolution.
>Heidegger: ?.
Can you say what you would put in the blank here? Maybe you hinted at it
when you wrote the following in a previous post:
>I would argue
>that if self=world, then the opposition relevant in Being and Time is not
>really individual vs. society, but rather community (Gemeinschaft) vs.
>society (Gesellschaft), and thus that the introduction of Volk later is
>not incidental, but the point of the book.
I've found what you said in this quote very interesting. It has kept coming
back to me over the past few days.
However, I'm sort of choking on the phrase "the point of the book."
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>It is not "They" who are responsible, as if the
>world were under the thrall of some internationalist conspiracy or
>another, but no one. A very, very similar articulation can one find in
>certain writings of Karl Marx, who attributes quite a causal effect to
>something called capital - NOT capitalists - but capital. The problem
>with capital is that it controls everyone without regard to the human
>good; in short, no one is in control. This is the very problem: if no
>one is in control, how do we get control? Marx: proletariat revolution.
>Heidegger: ?.
Can you say what you would put in the blank here? Maybe you hinted at it
when you wrote the following in a previous post:
>I would argue
>that if self=world, then the opposition relevant in Being and Time is not
>really individual vs. society, but rather community (Gemeinschaft) vs.
>society (Gesellschaft), and thus that the introduction of Volk later is
>not incidental, but the point of the book.
I've found what you said in this quote very interesting. It has kept coming
back to me over the past few days.
However, I'm sort of choking on the phrase "the point of the book."
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------