Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:24:25 GMT
From: janstr-AT-chan.nl (Jan Straathof)
Subject: RE: transparent contraband


Michael,

thanks for replying to my (too) personal questions,
allow me some considerations and further inquiries.

When you wrote:
> . . . . . . . This results in a characteristic transparency of German
>words; you
>can look through them down to their roots, which, I think, makes it easier to
>see the phenomena behind them.

i was wondering what you thoughts might be on the matter of the
applicability of etymology in philosophy. H.'s extensive appliance
sure partly seems to be a pedagogical-didactic strategy, moreover
H.'s neologisms gain strenght when you're in agreement with his
strategy; however his major aim seems to be to ground phenomena
in a historical linguistic realm and thus being able to convey the
"Seinsvergessenheit / Seinsverlassenheit" within language itself.

To me this all isn't ontologically sufficient nor convincing.

>From a wittgensteinian stance one might argue that the meaning
of a word is primarily determined by its actual use (social praxis /
interaction) and not by its etymological (historical) depth.
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence
by means of language", Wittgenstein once wrote, thus trying to
pinpoint the dangers of talking nonsense so apparent in the various
aporiai of archaic or esoteric language employed in Sceptism and
Transcendentalism.

Further more it has been argued that listening too close to the
'etymological echo' within language, one might get seduced to
conservatism or even worse: following the etymological path
one seeks to find the roots of "Blut und Boden" ?

>Thus, as an arbitrary example: Selbstaendigkeit or Unabhaengigkeit is more
>transparent than English 'independence' with its Latin root 'pendere' to hang.
>Is the phenomenal relation to 'hanging' apparent to an English speaker
>using the
>word 'independence'? I think not.

Yep, I agree, but imo this lack of transparency is not characteristic
for the English language as such, imo it's more a 'characteristic'
of (most of) its users; viz. their lack of etymological knowlegde ;-).

<snip>

On D -> E translations you wrote:
>So I have the feeling that a completely new text has to be written in English,
>which employs what English has to offer to say ......

I think this quest is inherent to heideggerian philosophy (and
probably philosophy in general). I sometimes think the best way
to understand Heidegger is to overcome him by translating and
transmuting his texts.

For instance if we try to link the concept of Aletheia with the
emancipatoric project of universal Freedom, we irrevocably
come in need of neologisms; and here Heidegger's 'step back
>from (his own) language' is just to clear the beginning for a new
plural intercreation of Being.

>Am I being too brief?

you're never too long

regards,
Jan

_____
btw. what's you opinion on bilinguals, do they 'think _Being_' different ?




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---