File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9808, message 70


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005