Re: Reply to Christopher Rickey

Well, it seems to a certain point I did misunderstand you. I took you t
be saying that the notion of the turn was invented by Loewith. You said
not. So I should read more carefully.

You say we should pay attention to what Heidegger actually says. Fair
enough. It can be questioned whether he understood what the turn was.
To put it into a simple question: was it a turn or a break? He said that
the turn was a turn within the question of being. What does within mean
here? In regard to Being and Time, it has been held that the turn was a
turning away from guiding the question through Dasein and instead
questioning being itself; this is attached to weeding out the subjective
elements of Being and Time so that the matter (the question) can come
into its own. This depends upon whether the question (and answer) in
Being and Time is amenable to this turn, or whether the whole of Being
and Time is determined by its subjectivity, in which case it could not be
a turn, but would be a break and renunciation of Being and Time. You can
read Dieter Thomae's book for an argument of this thesis.

As for the place of Being and Time, it comes under pressure from two
directions: that of the later Heidegger and now that of the early. I
wasn't disputing your contention about the increased emphasis in American
scholarship on the early works; I was just adding that many of his
students from this time agreed that this time was his high point.
Gadamer has long claimed that he was true to the insights of the early
Heidegger whereas Heidegger himself deviated into a mystical night. I
take no stand on this thought, but it is a commonly held opinion of his
early students.

What we find important in Heidegger depends upon our concerns.
Increasingly, the early works are seen as contributing to a fuller
conception of philosophy and philosophizing. Van Buren belongs to this
group. What van Buren may or may not know is how much his opinions fit
with those expressed earlier by Loewith, who felt that they were superior
to Being and Time, to say nothing of his later writings. As for
Heidegger's own evaluation of these writings, one could say, as Van Buren
puts it, that Heidegger's own opinion of this body of work is somewhat
irrelevant (you have to remember that Heidegger did not want them
published). If you want to make an argument, it must be that one set of
concerns is better than an other. Since I don't know your concerns, I
cannot engage with them.

Chris



--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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

Partial thread listing: