Christopher -=20
I was interested in your recent post citing mine. You seem to assume =
that none of the problems either raised or implied by my recent post are =
genuine difficulties, indeed that they have been in some sense "settled" =
to the satisfaction of all (except me, In this sense, I suppose, it was =
good of you to write).
Your points deserve a reply.
In the first place, the question of the turn. The point in my post is =
this: everyone agrees there is "die Kehre", the "turn". Even Heidegger =
discusses die Kehre (see, for instance his quoted plea to Heinrich =
Wiegand Petztet in *Auf einen Stern zugehen ...*). The "turn" as it is =
discussed by Heidegger is not, however, the turn as announced by Loewith =
- they play critically differing roles in the way Heidegger is read. If =
you had addressed the issue I raised, you would see that it is already =
there in the text of my post: my point was that there are strong reasons =
for taking seriously what Heidegger himself says about the turn, over =
and above what is said by most other people who use the notion of "a" =
turn as a kind of hermeneutic shorthand when they speak of Heidegger. =
Why is this important? Because whilst everyone agrees that there was a =
turn, nobody agrees what it is, or when it took place, (or in the case =
of people like Rockmore and Poeggeler, how many turns there were and how =
often they occurred) - just trawl through the secondary literature to =
see what I mean. The question of just what the turn was, and where it =
occurs (and, most critically why) is still open - though there are =
serious and eloquent pointers from Heidegger himself, not least the fact =
that he gave a whole lecture with die Kehre as its title. Even if we =
admit your suggestion that die Kehre was a "staple of (his) =
self-interpretation" we also have to take seriously the fact that the =
turn has been the staple of a whole mass of scholarship about Heidegger, =
and that Heidegger himself felt much of what he knew about it was =
misinterpreting him. Unless we want to claim to be better Heideggers =
than Heidegger himself was - if you will pardon the whimsy - we at least =
ought to take Heidegger's claim seriously. Loewith *does* invent a =
notion of the turn - which leads him to announce certain conclusions =
about Heidegger most of which are to do with his assessment of =
Heidegger's political position. His conclusions must at least be open =
to being questioned.
To take your second point - the relative importance of Sein und Zeit. =
Just what any particular thinker (however famous or obscure) holds about =
particular works might be a matter of opinion or it might be a matter of =
serious scholarship. Again it seems that, contrary to the current =
trends in Heidegger scholarship in the United States, we have to pay =
attention to the fact that Heidegger himself understood his work to =
possess a certain unity. I doubt Loewith took the view that the later =
Heidegger was just "silly" (to quote you) but he did argue that the =
gains made by "existence philosophy" were undervalued by Heidegger. It =
is the nature and character of that unity which is so deeply under =
question. That we can identify certain trends in the scholarship =
concerning Heidegger is a most important pointer to how he is being read =
and understood.
In conclusion, concerning Ott. Ott announces in the opening pages of =
his book that he has no particular concern with Heidegger's philosophy, =
only Heidegger's biography. As someone who also wants to announce the =
initiation of scholarly work that will result in making sense of =
Heidegger's life (hence his use of the allusive "unterwegs ..." - on the =
way to ..." in the subtitle), this is an extraordinary claim to make, =
not least because it is clearly making a bid to influence how the =
philosophical work of the man Heidegger will be received. Ott's lack of =
concern with Heidegger's thought does not extend to his not having a =
view (inevitably) about the importance of the "turn" - he even goes so =
far as to identify particular types of "turn" in Heidegger's =
biographical life. In a number of key places in his work, where Ott =
counterposes his account of events with his reading of Heidegger's own =
accounts, I have to say I am not convinced the case is proven. In at =
least two incidences, relating to Heidegger's immediate post-war =
experiences, Ott presents an account as a "correction" of Heidegger's =
own which in fact does not seem inconsistent with what Heidegger says. =
Heidegger may have been being "economical with the truth", but I don't =
think Ott succeeds in proving that he was just downright lying. Ott's =
scholarship and position is, if you like "loaded" while claiming to be =
impartial. I am not trying to exonerate or condemn Heidegger, I *am* =
saying he deserves to have more careful attention paid to what he =
actually says.
Laurence Hemming
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
I was interested in your recent post citing mine. You seem to assume =
that none of the problems either raised or implied by my recent post are =
genuine difficulties, indeed that they have been in some sense "settled" =
to the satisfaction of all (except me, In this sense, I suppose, it was =
good of you to write).
Your points deserve a reply.
In the first place, the question of the turn. The point in my post is =
this: everyone agrees there is "die Kehre", the "turn". Even Heidegger =
discusses die Kehre (see, for instance his quoted plea to Heinrich =
Wiegand Petztet in *Auf einen Stern zugehen ...*). The "turn" as it is =
discussed by Heidegger is not, however, the turn as announced by Loewith =
- they play critically differing roles in the way Heidegger is read. If =
you had addressed the issue I raised, you would see that it is already =
there in the text of my post: my point was that there are strong reasons =
for taking seriously what Heidegger himself says about the turn, over =
and above what is said by most other people who use the notion of "a" =
turn as a kind of hermeneutic shorthand when they speak of Heidegger. =
Why is this important? Because whilst everyone agrees that there was a =
turn, nobody agrees what it is, or when it took place, (or in the case =
of people like Rockmore and Poeggeler, how many turns there were and how =
often they occurred) - just trawl through the secondary literature to =
see what I mean. The question of just what the turn was, and where it =
occurs (and, most critically why) is still open - though there are =
serious and eloquent pointers from Heidegger himself, not least the fact =
that he gave a whole lecture with die Kehre as its title. Even if we =
admit your suggestion that die Kehre was a "staple of (his) =
self-interpretation" we also have to take seriously the fact that the =
turn has been the staple of a whole mass of scholarship about Heidegger, =
and that Heidegger himself felt much of what he knew about it was =
misinterpreting him. Unless we want to claim to be better Heideggers =
than Heidegger himself was - if you will pardon the whimsy - we at least =
ought to take Heidegger's claim seriously. Loewith *does* invent a =
notion of the turn - which leads him to announce certain conclusions =
about Heidegger most of which are to do with his assessment of =
Heidegger's political position. His conclusions must at least be open =
to being questioned.
To take your second point - the relative importance of Sein und Zeit. =
Just what any particular thinker (however famous or obscure) holds about =
particular works might be a matter of opinion or it might be a matter of =
serious scholarship. Again it seems that, contrary to the current =
trends in Heidegger scholarship in the United States, we have to pay =
attention to the fact that Heidegger himself understood his work to =
possess a certain unity. I doubt Loewith took the view that the later =
Heidegger was just "silly" (to quote you) but he did argue that the =
gains made by "existence philosophy" were undervalued by Heidegger. It =
is the nature and character of that unity which is so deeply under =
question. That we can identify certain trends in the scholarship =
concerning Heidegger is a most important pointer to how he is being read =
and understood.
In conclusion, concerning Ott. Ott announces in the opening pages of =
his book that he has no particular concern with Heidegger's philosophy, =
only Heidegger's biography. As someone who also wants to announce the =
initiation of scholarly work that will result in making sense of =
Heidegger's life (hence his use of the allusive "unterwegs ..." - on the =
way to ..." in the subtitle), this is an extraordinary claim to make, =
not least because it is clearly making a bid to influence how the =
philosophical work of the man Heidegger will be received. Ott's lack of =
concern with Heidegger's thought does not extend to his not having a =
view (inevitably) about the importance of the "turn" - he even goes so =
far as to identify particular types of "turn" in Heidegger's =
biographical life. In a number of key places in his work, where Ott =
counterposes his account of events with his reading of Heidegger's own =
accounts, I have to say I am not convinced the case is proven. In at =
least two incidences, relating to Heidegger's immediate post-war =
experiences, Ott presents an account as a "correction" of Heidegger's =
own which in fact does not seem inconsistent with what Heidegger says. =
Heidegger may have been being "economical with the truth", but I don't =
think Ott succeeds in proving that he was just downright lying. Ott's =
scholarship and position is, if you like "loaded" while claiming to be =
impartial. I am not trying to exonerate or condemn Heidegger, I *am* =
saying he deserves to have more careful attention paid to what he =
actually says.
Laurence Hemming
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------