Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:11:35 -0700
From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
Subject: Re: Self-evidently so ...


Michael Eldred wrote:

> > >George Steiner makes several references to Heidegger's work;
> "Replace
> > >Sein by 'God' in all the key passages and their meaning becomes
> > >pellucid."
>
> Laurence, what is to be done with such pellucidity? As Steiner says,
> it comes
> from mapping the thinking of being back into two-thousand-year-old
> ruts in
> thinking.

Michael, does one's interpretation of the term "God" make any difference
here? Isn't there a mapping of one's thinking of being back into
two-thousand-year-old ruts only if the interpretation of "God" is from
that two-thousand-year-old tradition?

And as I'm writing this, I'm also hearing myself say something like,
"Well...if you are going to call Heidegger's reference to Being, a
reference to God, then you either have to redefine Heidegger's "Being"
in terms of the two-thousdand-year-old tradition, or the term "God" in
terms of Heidegger's notion of Being." I suppose I tend toward the
latter. But, then, why not just use the term Being? The term "God"
already has a meaning of its own.

On another note, why would Steiner say what he did about substituting
the term "God" for "Being", then turn right around and make the
statement about two-thousand-year-old ruts in thinking??

Michael Staples



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