File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9808, message 93


From: "Laurence Paul Hemming" <lph-AT-dircon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Heidegger and love.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:10:30 +0100


Dear Greg,

Many thanks for your help, which has been invaluable.  As to Heidegger, I
can only find two references to love as such: the first in Sein und Zeit (p.
190, footnote 1) and the other in Nietzsches Wort Gott ist Tod.  In both
cases the references to love occur with explicit reference to Christianity.
My own view would be that for Heidegger care (die Sorge) is the ontological
structure of Dasein that makes the ontic understanding of love possible.
Love would therefore be thematised in the ontic science of Theology as a
particular kind of 'openness towards ...', which is only possible because
the ontological structure of care makes all 'openness towards ...' as any
given way of relating (angst, terror, hope, etc)  possible *as* Dasein's
being-in-the-world.

What I'm not entirely clear about (because I'm no scholar of Husserl) is
whether Safranski's description of Husserl's understanding of love
consituted as 'non-objectly' is at variance with what is implied by
Heidegger.  I am strongly tempted to suggest that they are the same, even
though in many other ways what each says is rather different.  It is the
"Nicht-Gegenstand" (Safranski, p. 95) aspect that interests me here.

The reference to Nietzsche is of a rather different character, and the
relation between them is complex, and is what I'm working on right now.

Your kindness is appreciated.

Laurence.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of
> GBORGERSON-AT-delphi.com
> Sent: 21 August 1998 15:21
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Heidegger and love.
>
>
> Dear Lawrence,
>
> 	Husserl specifically discusses the intentionality of love in
> Ideas I. He does this in sections 37, 84 and 121. In this formulation
> love is a noetic act with an intentional object.
> 	As Bill correctly points out the fifth section of the Cartesian
> Meditations is crucial here even though love is not specifically
> thematized because in the Cartesian Meditations the other becomes
> a subject like me as opposed to an object. This was a
> significant shift
> for Husserl between the writing of Ideas I and The Cartesian
> Meditations.
> 	Skimming quickly through other later works I don't find where
> Husserl takes this up more directly but I think most Husserlians would
> agree that Safranski's synthesis of Ideas I and the Cartesian
> Meditations
> is completely in line with the later thinking of Husserl.
> 	This idea was developed further by Merleau-Ponty and Sartre.
>
> Hope this answers your question, let me know if you need it
> developed more
> fully. Maybe Micheal E. or Henk could contrast this formulation with
> Hiedegger's and provide references. Hiedy's would be very different.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Borgerson
>
>
>      --- 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