>
>I think that it is completely useless to discuss the personal politics of
>Heidegger as if it had any bearing on what he actually had say in his
>philosophy (unless it did and I don't believe that Heidegger is read as if
>it did). He didn't preach Nazism (or any other ism) and I find it almost
>innane that anyone would find it relevant except from a historical
>perspective. From the perch of philosophy what difference does it make?
>Heck, maybe Hegel tortured small animals for fun; Plato *did* like young
>boys. I still really liked their work.
>
>Nik
>N N I K K William NIcKolas Lenco
>NN N I K K 67A Charlotte Street
>N N N I K K Fredericton
>N N N I KKK New Brunswick
>N N N I K K E3B 1L1
>N N N I K K (506) 454-1113
>N NN I K K c6v9@xxxxxx
>
>"We think in generalities, but we live in detail."
> -A.N.Whitehead
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
I couldn't agree more. My perspective on this point is one I developed
quite some time ago in some of my aesthetic philosophy. Works (of art, or
philosophy) are not unlike the children of a lesser god. If a parent is a
convicted pedophile, or murderer, it would be proposterous to convict the
child as well. The child is only accused in the event thay they,
themselves, commit an act against social order. Let's forget this petty
talk and let Heidegger works stand as what they are. If they lead (and it
does seem unlikely) to anything so horrific as the nazi massacres, we will
know the time to fight. After all, Sartre fought in the French Resistance
and he adored Heidegger.
Back on the topic of Dasein and his relationship to Being. I agree with
Eccy entirely. Heidegger's position on Dasein is that it is something that
we simply ARE. As Kant would allow his classification of a human as "a
rational agent" to be extended to aliens so long as they fit the description
(see his _First Critique_), so too would Heidegger allow the term Dasein to
extend to other living things who fit the description. Perhaps the only
thing barring the use of the term for animals today (dolphins for example)
is a lack of an accurate description of what these animals ARE. Who's is to
say what the future holds? Today, however, we are the only Dasein we know.
Winston
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>I think that it is completely useless to discuss the personal politics of
>Heidegger as if it had any bearing on what he actually had say in his
>philosophy (unless it did and I don't believe that Heidegger is read as if
>it did). He didn't preach Nazism (or any other ism) and I find it almost
>innane that anyone would find it relevant except from a historical
>perspective. From the perch of philosophy what difference does it make?
>Heck, maybe Hegel tortured small animals for fun; Plato *did* like young
>boys. I still really liked their work.
>
>Nik
>N N I K K William NIcKolas Lenco
>NN N I K K 67A Charlotte Street
>N N N I K K Fredericton
>N N N I KKK New Brunswick
>N N N I K K E3B 1L1
>N N N I K K (506) 454-1113
>N NN I K K c6v9@xxxxxx
>
>"We think in generalities, but we live in detail."
> -A.N.Whitehead
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
I couldn't agree more. My perspective on this point is one I developed
quite some time ago in some of my aesthetic philosophy. Works (of art, or
philosophy) are not unlike the children of a lesser god. If a parent is a
convicted pedophile, or murderer, it would be proposterous to convict the
child as well. The child is only accused in the event thay they,
themselves, commit an act against social order. Let's forget this petty
talk and let Heidegger works stand as what they are. If they lead (and it
does seem unlikely) to anything so horrific as the nazi massacres, we will
know the time to fight. After all, Sartre fought in the French Resistance
and he adored Heidegger.
Back on the topic of Dasein and his relationship to Being. I agree with
Eccy entirely. Heidegger's position on Dasein is that it is something that
we simply ARE. As Kant would allow his classification of a human as "a
rational agent" to be extended to aliens so long as they fit the description
(see his _First Critique_), so too would Heidegger allow the term Dasein to
extend to other living things who fit the description. Perhaps the only
thing barring the use of the term for animals today (dolphins for example)
is a lack of an accurate description of what these animals ARE. Who's is to
say what the future holds? Today, however, we are the only Dasein we know.
Winston
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------