From: "Rafael Capurro, Professor" <CAPURRO-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:50:08 +0200 Subject: Re: identity & difference Bob, >the fundamentum was now the subjectivity of the subject with the >whole >armour of categories >>how much more, then, h's dasein (always and in each case mine), and the hermeneutic issuing thereform the difference concerns indeed the question of fundamentum. Kant places the subject with the _armour of categories_ as a _wall_ in order to defend critical thinking, H.'s existential analysis is used in order to (remember Popper) _falsify_ the question of Being as (not) asked by metaphysics: there is at least one being (our own) that does not fit into the _categories_ of Vorhandenheit (and presence) >>So, from the beginning it's perplexed me to hear >>neitzsche, the bertran, accredited the >>feats of the cour de leon. >I don't get your point here >>it was kant who dared to know the death of great pan, nietzsche only announced it. This is, sorry, still not understandable to me: what do you mean by the death grea pan? the death of god? what does _bertran_ mean? and _cour de leon_? There is indeed a critical movement in Kant concerning God. He approaches him only with the _armour of categories_ >>And there seems >>almost a perversity on the part >>of the hegel/heid caste to construe its opposite >>untouchables. >>? >Is this a question ...? >>rather, again, perplexity. It sees a version of the old dichotomy in the tradition, between german speculative and critical idealism; and means to point to the seeming conspicuous invisibility of the latter, to the former. Kant/cassirer have already been cited... but how about the notion of the essence of technology, the frame, and no mentioning weber... ? Are you trying to say that the difference between Hegel (speculative idealism) and Kant (critical idealism) is something similar as the difference between H. (in place of Hegel) and Kant (or Cassirer)? The similarities and dissimilarities are on both sides. H. reads Hegel within the horizon of facticity and finitude (Kant) and he reads Kant under the premise that the question of being (as presence, or as hegelian absolute presence) remains unquestioned. With regard to Cassirer there is, as you know, the famous Davoser debate. Cassirer is interested in the construction (through symbolic forms, not so much through technical devices! altough he points to this other domain too) whereas H. is trying to dig deeper into the presuppositions. Cassirer takes the subject as already instantiated through Kant, H. is interested in questioning this instantiation. and ? 2: the concept being identical, what IS the >>difference between h's "thinking" and weber's? H. and Weber is a broad subject... Weber was interested, as you know, in the spirit of religions/theologies and their influence on economy and he was aware that the age of burocracy and science would leave a hole in our lives. H. tries to deal with this hole >>is it not indeed "bad (or maybe, good) mysticism/myth-making"? poesis vs theoria (i think); and,of course, the viands of the gods (ontology) bear no traces of the barnyard (regional logoi). ? .... maybe some kind of mythmaking belongs to philosophy (and is, in this sense, good mysticism), as Plato did. Fighting for pure enlightment can be bad illuminism (rationalism, even in the case, or particularly then, when it says, this is the only way of being critical etc. see, again, popper) >There is _morning_ for us, still. Still, still, still... ... so like the job author, when we "speak" of "foundations" and "in the beginning's" we recur to metaphors, formal indicators(symbolic forms); the rigid frame of representational speech is obviated, a lamb can be a god, a wooden cross, the world-tree,...dasein,no-thing & time;and the tradition calls that myth/theology. _the tradition_? what tradition? who is able with what criteria to call this or that _myth_? And what is a _myth_? something that is being _transmitted_ ? >>why not read h, sitz im leben, as a particular (ironic) completion of nietzsche/schwietzer/bultmann,... fixing the horizon, searching signs and portents of morning...ontotheology Is it possible some of us bear the same defensive/reflexive animus against theology as h? H. is indeed _deconstructing_ onto-theo-logy. I bear, as you say, well not a _reflexive (or defensive) animus against theology_ but a particular (personal, ontic) interest on this. I am interested in the question of what it means _to bear a message_ particulary when this message is supposed to be a _holy_ one. There are many things to which we attribute holiness (even to logic, rationality, technology etc.). So, the _question of theology_ can concern the _question of technology_. kind regards rafael bob --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005