Re: Sartre...

Michael,

>Nik. You're right, the "children of a lesser god" thing was Colin's and
>not yours. I think the problem with the music analogy, though, is that
>it seems to long for a purity of forms, a place where the notes are the
>same whether Mozart is a Nazi or a Communist. And this may not be the
>best way to imagine the political aspects of the work. The movie you
>referenced about Mozart's life is full of politics, by the way --
>competition for patronage, national ideologies, and so forth.

The politiks in the movie was actually what I was refering to. The
movie was not, after all, an in-depth discussion of his music, it was a
*discussion* about his life. If you will allow me one more *vulgarity* (and
I assure you I am certain to continue to use them as my writing has never
been criticised as "over-concise"), I would say that the movie was
interesting from a historical standpoint (ie, where the guy was coming from)
but would be of little interest to someone studying the value of the music
itself.
That being said, I am starting to come around on this issue (isn't
that what discussion is for - smile). My use of the word "uninteresting"
has especially come back to haunt me with a vengence and was a poor word
choice. I still do not believe that Heidegger's political direction had much
to do with his "ontology". As someone else on the list mentioned, the
ontology is (and this is by no means a quote) *supra-political*. I am,
however, seeing that it might be interesting from another perspective
(someone else's, for example) and have definitely always believed that it
has a place in a discussion of Heidegger (just not his ontology directly).

>It is a
>fairly recent idea that works or art should exist as pure forms, apart
>from the context in which they were created.

As long as you mean "few hundred years" by "fairly recent". :)
I personally think that works of art should be both divorced from
their context of creation and embraced as products of that context. Off the
top of my head I would say that the greatest bits of art are those pieces
that bridge the gap of context while still giving the viewer a very strong
sense of that context. On the other hand I would still object to MH being
stuck in this positional criteria. B&T was definitely not written about or
for the context of Nazi-ism. While I suppose an argument could be made to
the contrary, it would have to be a very good one to convince me that MH's
political aspirations were outlined anywhere in the pages of B&T. In the
broad sense of the word "politics" (ie, the greek context, that is also
seeing a recent resurgance) it would have to be the case that MH's politics
were involed (ie, he grew out of a context), but this would not be the same
word "politics" that is applied to political parties (ideologies). Rather,
it would be a word describing, once again, that we "are".

>The things you want to
>"shine through" -- I'm quoting you from memory -- Heidegger's
>work may be there waiting to be seen, so don't foreclose on the project yet.

I would never foreclose on a project. Especially one as interesting (and
sometimes heated) as this one. :)

>The vexed question that many Heideggerians have been kicking around for a
>while now, including pretty involved threads on this list a while back,
>is: Where does Heidegger ever develop a philosophy of Community or
>political action?

[snip]

I would say that, if there is one, MH's development of political action
would have to at least stem from "being with others". Pushing towards the
egocentric or not, we are (Dasein is), according to Being and Time, an
*entity* which is "political". Isn't "political" what is basically meant by
"being-with-others"? Not political in the sense of Nazism or Communism or
and "ism" but political in the sense that we "are" actually
"being-with-others" and, as such, are "political". I think this comes very
close to what Aristotle meant when he said "man is a political animal".
If MH wrote anything concerning our political (in the more vulgar
sense) nature (ie, specific morals and what is right and wrong) then he did
not do so in B&T or "Probs. of Phen.". The *goal* (if you will) of these
texts was not to outline politics in this manner. It was to find Being. Why
would we suspect to find a Ronald Dworkin within the pages of a philosopher
interested in finding Being?
Then again, maybe it is there. Perhaps it will "shine-through"
(catch us in the clearing if you will).

>(By the way, you keep using the term Heidegger's "socialism." Do you
>mean National Socialism?)

Sure. I didn't mean that it *was* Heidegger's. I merely meant it was the
one he seemed to endorse.


Sorry this was so long but I wanted to try to be clear (for a change).

-Nik



--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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

Partial thread listing: