From: M.D.Kuzmick-AT-sussex.ac.uk (Marlon Kuzmick)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:32:16 GMT
Subject: heidegger is not lukacs


while robert scheetz has outlined the 
foundation of a rather intriguing 
existential marxism, i don't know if it 
can be said that heidegger's texts invite 
a reading quite that praxis-oriented.
  even granting the rigid distinction 
robert makes between "art" and "philosophy 
books", i think one would be hard-pressed 
to find many passages in which heidegger 
indicates "the absurdity of engaging [his] 
thought discursively".  in general, i 
think that heidegger advocates a dialogue 
with previous thought/thinkers.  to 
appropriate certain aspects of heidegger's 
thought (specifically what is often called 
the "existentialism" of being and time - 
since that's what we seem to be on about 
these days) in order to make them the 
foundation of some sort of revolutionary 
program of self/social liberation, would 
be to cast heidegger in a role both 
politically unsavoury and textually 
unsupportable.

-mk.


On 31 Jan 97 21:21:04 EST robert scheetz 
wrote:

> From: robert scheetz 
<76550.1064-AT-CompuServe.COM>
> Date: 31 Jan 97 21:21:04 EST
> Subject: the Geuvara happening
> To: heidegger list 
<heidegger-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
> 
> Am unclear re the quality of the animus 
toward Engineer Guevara:
> high churchmen for le stil California?, 
commercialism?,
> exhibitionism?, charlatanry?....
> 
> For it does recall a particular 
doctrine, praxis vs analysis, of that 
earlier
> era, the Sartrean vogue, which I know to 
be disdained, but have not seen
> explained.  
> 
> Permiso:
> If discursive speech is a nihilistic 
technology vis a vis beyng,
> while poiesis is saving, Sartre's point 
that post modern philosophy
> is accomplished in art, not philosophy 
books, is correct.  Similarly,
> since "thinking" is an enframing, a 
reifying that submerges beyng; while
> praxis presences beyng...(in earnest of 
which MH, like Sartre, gave up
> brahminism for revolution; and in its 
default, returning, his "thinking" took
> the from of a "destruction of 
thinking"), Engineer Guevara is right,
> despite all his protestations about not 
wanting to diss anyone, in pointing to
> the absurdity (i.e. for heideggerians; 
i.e. persons once convinced on this
> doctrine of nihilation) of engaging the 
thought of Heidegger discursively.
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list 
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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