On Fri, 27 Oct 1995 18:42:04 -0700 (PDT) you wrote:
>Another way to come at this might be to amplify Eric's remarks about
>Sartre in another post today. If I'm remembering right, the main
>critique of Sartre is that he tries to use Heidegger's work as an
>ontological foundation of political action, and that he smuggles back
>into Heidegger a notion of a subject, who must then choose authenticity.
>This, the criticism runs, returns philosophy to the metaphysical
>difference and to repositing the very agenda Heidegger wanted to open up
>and interrogate.
>
Michael,
I don't think, that Heidegger has destroyed the metaphysical
difference
(what do you mean? The onological??) and he has'nt destroyed the
choose of the subject, that is as "I am". We have to read the text and
not Heideggers Interpretation of himself after B&T. In "Being and
Time" he wrote, õ54, p.268 in the german text: "Nachholen der Wahl
bedeutet aber W?hlen dieser Wahl, Sichentscheiden f?r ein Seink?nnen
aus dem eigenen Selbst. Im W?hlen der Wahl erm?glicht sich das Dasein
allererst sein eigentliches Seink?nnen". What is "Wahl"??: choosing!
What is "Sichentscheiden"??: deciding!
Heidegger, in my opinion, only want to destroy the "subjekt", because
the "Dasein" is no substance, no thing, but in GA24, written 1927, he
said (p220 in the german text), that he want to interpretate the "Sein
des Subjekts", that means the Being of the subject.
I ask you: you don't are a subject, Michael?? No, when I would mean
with "subjekt" "substance", but you are possibility (M?glichkeit), you
are open to your Being, no substance. But this is only another
Interpretation of "Subject", another understanding of Being. We must
decide wich one is the true one.
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>Another way to come at this might be to amplify Eric's remarks about
>Sartre in another post today. If I'm remembering right, the main
>critique of Sartre is that he tries to use Heidegger's work as an
>ontological foundation of political action, and that he smuggles back
>into Heidegger a notion of a subject, who must then choose authenticity.
>This, the criticism runs, returns philosophy to the metaphysical
>difference and to repositing the very agenda Heidegger wanted to open up
>and interrogate.
>
Michael,
I don't think, that Heidegger has destroyed the metaphysical
difference
(what do you mean? The onological??) and he has'nt destroyed the
choose of the subject, that is as "I am". We have to read the text and
not Heideggers Interpretation of himself after B&T. In "Being and
Time" he wrote, õ54, p.268 in the german text: "Nachholen der Wahl
bedeutet aber W?hlen dieser Wahl, Sichentscheiden f?r ein Seink?nnen
aus dem eigenen Selbst. Im W?hlen der Wahl erm?glicht sich das Dasein
allererst sein eigentliches Seink?nnen". What is "Wahl"??: choosing!
What is "Sichentscheiden"??: deciding!
Heidegger, in my opinion, only want to destroy the "subjekt", because
the "Dasein" is no substance, no thing, but in GA24, written 1927, he
said (p220 in the german text), that he want to interpretate the "Sein
des Subjekts", that means the Being of the subject.
I ask you: you don't are a subject, Michael?? No, when I would mean
with "subjekt" "substance", but you are possibility (M?glichkeit), you
are open to your Being, no substance. But this is only another
Interpretation of "Subject", another understanding of Being. We must
decide wich one is the true one.
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------