Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 13:26:30 -0500
From: Todd Mei <tmei-AT-chubb.com>
Subject: Re: Heidegger's no help


Chris Morrissey wrote:

> No, it is becoming easier and easier, as your resistance to accountability
> clarifies the problematic areas of your speech.
> 
> Simply answer the question,
> Which epoch was Cicero living in?
> (Does anyone live in an epoch?)
> 
> Again, if an "epoch means nothing in itself" (as you assert),
> then when does the epoch mean something? How?
> (If it never means anything,
> then why the otiose qualification, "in itself"?)

Dear Chris,

I see that courteousy is not one of your top priorities: neither
courteousy to reply nor courteousy to read what others have said.

I qualified what I meant by what you quote from me above.  It was in the
original post you said, "Stop right there."  Your rebuttal, which was
general and undirected at any my comments, was simply a restatement of
your position.

 
> > I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I am rather
> > flummoxed by your presistence to repeat your positions emphatically and
> > without much substantiation.
> 
> I'm not asking you for long speeches, so why would I make one?

I did not ask for a long speech.  I asked for substantiation which could
mean references, quoted passages . . .


> My "position" is that you digest loads of Heidegger, make long speeches,
> and yet are unable to answer simple questions about things you just said.
> 
> I seek short, direct answers to my questions. If you find this difficult,
> then I think you are not interested in discussion (just in making
> speeches).

It is this very desire of yours to seek short answers which I would
question and which is representative of the modern epoch you oppose. 
Looking back through history is not necessarily the only means of
arguing Heidegger's point valid or invalid.  The mans of proving or
disproving which you suppose is so pertinent is only one form of proof. 
It also supposes that philosophical questions can be reduced from what
the thinker has said into a simple answer to be analyzed.

The epoch we live in is the modern epoch, this is attested to by the
very manner which we force subjects to the fore in our thinking.  It is
attested to in the shift in methodology during the 19th century.  To
refer to another key word *science*, the varied understanding of the
term within the English and German language is demonstrative of this
shift, of the type of methodology to understanding which summons forth
subjects as objects, understanding of things in terms of genera.
 
> > I get the feeling you are trying to score points in this discussion.
> 
> You mean you feel I'm making you look bad?
> Because you can't answer a question?

I'll let this stand for itself.
 
> > You have never quoted a passage from Heidegger which would support your
> > criticism.  And any quotes I have supplied have never been commented
> > upon and glimpsed over.
> 
> No, we are BOTH talking about precisely those same passages.

And what passages would these be?


> My "criticism" is that the talk of "epochs" in these passages is unable
> bear scrutiny.
> 
> Your inability to answer simple questions about "epochs" is precisely what
> "substantiates" my criticism.
> 
> > I am given the impression that you do not really intend to discuss
> > things at all, but merely "reply", as if the reply made clear
> > everything, showed one understanding to be defective.
> 
> Is this disdain for "replying" the root of your refusal to directly address
> my questions?
> 
> It seems to me the defective understanding is the one that must flee from
> questioning.
> 
> > Even given that,
> > you have not explicated your replies, have not shown how Heidegger's
> > thinking is defective.  You have, however, taken my posts to be
> > representative of Heidegger's thinking himself.  Not that I mind or
> > care, but you have also lumped my thinking under some notion you have of
> > the common errors in Heideggerianism!
> 
> The only thing I have to go on is what you say (which seems to show an
> infatuation with Heideggerian thinking).
> 
> So far, it seems that you share with Heidegger a contempt for simple
> dialogue,
> for probing question and honest response,
> and that you would rather make "profound" speeches,
> never having to be flummoxed by another in discussion.
> 
> > Well, I think you will agree with me that any further discussion will
> > not be fruitful or productive.
> 
> No, I must disagree. Your answer to the following would be fruitful:
> 
> > > > > Which epoch was Cicero living in?
> > > > > (You must answer the question saying what you truly believe, e.g.
> "No
> > > > > epoch. One cannot live in an epoch," or some other similarly direct
> > > > > answer.)
> 
> Peace,
> Chris
> 
I wasn't informed of the moment when Chris Morrisey dictated the rules
of discussion. Is this what it means when you ask I be honest?


Regards,


Todd


P.S.- Are you American?


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