At 08:49 AM 9/18/95 +-100, you wrote:
>
>
>----------
>From: Iain Thomson[SMTP:ithomson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 17 September 1995 14:11
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Heidegger and Marx
> On a point of reference, can anyone remember where Heidegger discusses why
Marx is simply wrong - there is a reference which I cannot find, where he
discusses Marx's classic distinction between philosophy as thinking and
doing (ie philosophy must not simply think about the world, the necessity is
to change it). Heidegger's riposte is particularly sharp, but I cannot find it.
>
> I hope some of this is of use.
>
>Laurence Hemming
I believe you are thinking of the following passage from "Kant's Thesis on
Being" (KANTS THESE UBER DAS SEIN). (One of two relevant references I
remember,) Here I translate tersely from a French translation (by Lucien
Braun and Michel Haar) :
----
Kant's thesis on Being in the form that it takes in his main work in the
_Critique of Pure Reason_ (1781) expresses itself as folows:
"Being is not a real concept, a concept of some thing that could attach
itself to a concept of a thing or of any determinations in themselves."
(A598, B626)
With regards to what today is taken to be, concerning that which oppresses
us as the existent and threatens us as possible non-being, Kant's thesis
appears pale in comparison. Because in the meantime, one has required of
philosophy itself that it not content itself to interpret the world and
loose itself in abstract speculations; it would be a matter rather of
practically transforming the world. Nevertheless, the transformation of the
world so evoked supposses that thought changes itself, just as with this
exigency a transformation of thought is postulated (cf. Karl Marx, _The
German Ideology_: "A. Thesis on Feuerbach, II" : "Philosophers have so far
only diversely interpreted the world, now it is a matter of transforming it.")
Yet how is thinking to change itself if it does not enter the path that
leads to the most worthy of thought? That it is precisely being (Being) that
is given as this most worthy, this is not some gratuitous hypothesis nor an
arbitrary invention. It is the saying of a tradition that determines us yet
today, and in such a decisive manner that one hardly recognizes it.
------
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>
>
>----------
>From: Iain Thomson[SMTP:ithomson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 17 September 1995 14:11
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Heidegger and Marx
> On a point of reference, can anyone remember where Heidegger discusses why
Marx is simply wrong - there is a reference which I cannot find, where he
discusses Marx's classic distinction between philosophy as thinking and
doing (ie philosophy must not simply think about the world, the necessity is
to change it). Heidegger's riposte is particularly sharp, but I cannot find it.
>
> I hope some of this is of use.
>
>Laurence Hemming
I believe you are thinking of the following passage from "Kant's Thesis on
Being" (KANTS THESE UBER DAS SEIN). (One of two relevant references I
remember,) Here I translate tersely from a French translation (by Lucien
Braun and Michel Haar) :
----
Kant's thesis on Being in the form that it takes in his main work in the
_Critique of Pure Reason_ (1781) expresses itself as folows:
"Being is not a real concept, a concept of some thing that could attach
itself to a concept of a thing or of any determinations in themselves."
(A598, B626)
With regards to what today is taken to be, concerning that which oppresses
us as the existent and threatens us as possible non-being, Kant's thesis
appears pale in comparison. Because in the meantime, one has required of
philosophy itself that it not content itself to interpret the world and
loose itself in abstract speculations; it would be a matter rather of
practically transforming the world. Nevertheless, the transformation of the
world so evoked supposses that thought changes itself, just as with this
exigency a transformation of thought is postulated (cf. Karl Marx, _The
German Ideology_: "A. Thesis on Feuerbach, II" : "Philosophers have so far
only diversely interpreted the world, now it is a matter of transforming it.")
Yet how is thinking to change itself if it does not enter the path that
leads to the most worthy of thought? That it is precisely being (Being) that
is given as this most worthy, this is not some gratuitous hypothesis nor an
arbitrary invention. It is the saying of a tradition that determines us yet
today, and in such a decisive manner that one hardly recognizes it.
------
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------