Date: 04 Feb 97 23:04:33 EST
From: robert scheetz <76550.1064-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Heid & Jesus


Malcolm Riddoch writes:
>But as far as origins go, especially with Heidegger, aren't they always
>multiple? He more or less starts his career and becomes famous for his
>readings of Aristotle in the twenties so there is a greek provenance of
>sorts, even if his later readings of Plato are dubious. But then the
>critique of Platonism seems to be more a critique of Christian
>neo-platonism than Plato's philosophy and so we come back to this
>onto-theological strain of thought, and back to Heideger's Nietzsche. Not
>that Nietzsche was averse to quoting the greeks, and to what degree is
>Dyonisus the focus of will to power against Christian resentiment (but
>maybe not against Christ himself)? And for this neo-classical sentiment in
>Heidegger there are also of course origins in Holderlin and Hegel (and
>Goethe?).

>Then again the Aristotelean reading was a phenomenological one and how can
>you go past Husserl as perhaps the defining origin, at least as far as
>methodology goes? And then Lebensphilosophie in general, and Dilthey,
>Natorp and others. And with Husserl comes Kant and the whole problem of
>Heidegger's transcendentalism.

>With so many origins for Heidegger's thinking, where should we strain our
>credulity next?
                                                                                

Malcolm,
 Can't an agnostic perhaps also see simplicity and coherence in H's curriculum?
  The impulse to ontology, the Big Muddy,  didn't come from Husserl et al.
(themes, methods, motifs,influences...tributaries). Oughtn't the Brentano
anecdote, synecdochally for his seminary schooling, be accorded the prestige,
"headwater"; not merely chronologically primary, but originary? 

Bob



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