In reply to Christopher Rickey, I wonder what evidence he has that =
Heidegger could not read English? There are, in fact, a number of =
suggestions in his various works that he could - notably when he quotes =
or cites minor English phrases or words (cf. for instance the 1949 =
Bremen lecture Das Ding, where, in talking about the meaning of the word =
"thing" in English he comments that there is a phrase "he knows his =
things").
As for the distinction between empiricism and "some sort" of idealism, =
with the suggestion that Heidegger was more committed in one rather than =
another direction in the making of this distinction, it might be helpful =
to consider his comments in the early part of the published text of the =
1937-38 lecture course Grundfragen der Philosophie (Vol 45 of the =
Gesamtausgabe, translated in 1994 as "Basic Questions of Philosophy" =
Indiana, Bloomington). Here it is clear (cf for instance Section 7 of =
the Second Chapter) that not only does Heidegger regard empiricism and =
idealism as belonging together, but also that empricism is itself a =
concealed idealism because both spring from the "gemeinsamen Boden" =
(common soil or earth) of a conception of truth as the correctness of a =
representation. My tentative suggestion would be that Heidegger =
resisted any large-scale discussion of empiricism because he believed it =
to be a derivative "department" of the philosophy of its time. There =
are, however, enough references to Locke and Hume to suggest he had =
formed an at least in-formed opinion about it.
We might do well to reconsider Heidegger's view of the relationship =
between mathesis, techne and orthotes for a clearer understanding of =
technology, mathematics and their determination to truth - I would =
suggest that the Nietzsche lectures would be a help here, as well as the =
lecture courses Einfuehrung in die Metaphysik and Parmenides.
Hope this is of use.
Laurence Hemming
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------