Subject: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:56:53 +0100


Dear all,

this is part of an e-mail exchange between Allen Stuart and me. Allen asked
me to make it public. I hope you will enjoy it.
Rafael


Dear Rafael,
Sorry to be so long in responding, but I was away over holidays. As I work
to catch up, I have only time for a short response to the following ( more
later):

Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote:
>Dear Allen,
>Thanks for your mail.

Allen: >> I think certain passages in the "J" document in the Hebrew Bible
speak
>their message in a way which gives rise to a certain "worshipful
>orientation" (Heidegger calls it "Hingabe" in his reading of of the
>medieval mystics) to the words of the text.

>I agree. There is a connection between this attitude and the reference to a
>_message_ (angelia) to which H. refers in his late writings (Conversation
with
>the Japanase) as pertaining to Hermeneutics (in the sense of proclaiming).
This
>was not considered by Gadamer, who is only interested in interpretation of
given
>(!) texts. Re-velation has the character of the new and unexpected. I wrote
some
>criticisms on Gadamer (you can find them in my homepage. Hermeneutik im
Vorblick)

The passage you refer to in UzS is a favorite one of mine too. Its
implications for thinking the co-temporal place of rhetoric "alongside"
hermeneutics is very rich. I do think, however, that Gadamer of late has
brought out the possibility of revelatory surprise as part of the
hermeneutical experience.

In his "Intoduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics," Grodin quotes Gadamer as
saying in answer to the question " What does the universal aspect of
hermeneutics consist in?" " In the verbum interius," aswers Gadamer.

I have always wondered how, according to Gadamer" a "given" text can provide
the surprise, the "being pulled up short" essential to the hermeneutical
experience. I think that the sense of a verbum interius is "what gives&
quot; ( "Was gibt" in ) texts like "J" their rhetorical hermeneutical power,
and I think Gadamer's consistent interest in rhetoric ( not so much in WuM,
but in some of the essays) reflects this.

I have not read your essay critiquing Gadamer, but will. By the way would
you mind posting our exchange ( perhaps beinning here) on the list? I think
others might be interested.

Thanks,

Allen

Allen Scult
515 271 2869
http://www.mac.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html


>>Aside from her basic thesis, which I agree is overstated, is there
>anything else you found striking in Zarader's work?>
>
>Here some hints:
>La dette impensee:
>1) p. 63: ecoute de l'etre/ecoute de dieu (H. / Levinas): the first one is
>open and not fixed to a content... , but the structure of the word is
analogue :
>a _call_ coming from abroad (see: my reference to _angelia_)
>2) p. 65: mantis and nabi: poets are not prophets. The biblical prophet
>_gives his mouth_ to other words, the Greek prophet is inspired, less than
a
>mediator (again here: the question of transmitting/anouncing a message)
>3) p. 85: appel et ecoute,memoire et fidelite, reconnaissance et action de
>graces: all these are concepts basic to the Bible and to H. (Was heisst
denken).
>Zarader thinks that H. does not refer to this origin and even deletes this
>origin... (p. 98)  (this theses should be, in my view, criticized... now)
>4) p. 135: thinking and faith: take care of the openness (into which the
>god can come) (again: manifestation, announcement)
>
>5) p. 179: the question of time: Paulus and Kairos: something arrives
>without pre-view: this is Hebrew Time  (vs. chronological Greek time
(Thessal. Letter)
>(she speaks of a disconnection between Ancient and New Testament at H. I
>think we should investigate H. theological sources, particularly K. Braig
and
>others.. such as Schelling, Boehme; Kabbala): she puts this as a general
problem of Wester
>thinking (but connections to Ricoeur, Derrida (Geist/ruah)(!), Levinas and
>Lyotard are necessary for this task too). According to Ricoeur (p.199)
Hebrew
>heritage implies a _call_ (appel) (and is not concerned with Being/being)
(Being
>should then be conceived as a being). My question: What H. is
doing/thinking is
>precisely to think Being as _call_ (the book by A. Ronell is a persiflage
on
>this...). The general question is the relationship between the Hebrew
heritage and Western
>Thinking. (in my view: this has to be considered as a special (!) question
>related to the more general problem of intercultural aspects with other
>traditions: for instance the question if there is a non-european
philosophy. My thesis: a
>non-european philosophy is only possible when there is a connection with
>european philosophy (which is a tautology)
>
>In H. et les parlores de l origine she speaks about Ereignis as donation
>(p. 248), where the thinking of ground looses all its force. In his
introduction
>Levinas  criticizes (once again) the conception of Being as Neutrum and
insists on
>_l'humain_, on subjectivity and personality... I think he misunderstands H.
>completely on this. H. is seen as the one who puts the land before man
(but: if
>this is Hebrew thinking, then it is very hard to understand what now
happens in
>Israel, in the name of the Holy Land... Levinas writes: la personne est
plus
>sainte qu un terre, meme quand la terre est Terre Sainte) Die Erde is not
the land, it
>is exactly the contrary, namely that which withdraws itself (with regard to
the
>World). And: Numeri XIV, 6, to which Levinas refers, includes both
(calomnis on
>the land and on Moises, which Levinas regards as non-comparable! Is this, I
mean,
>Levinas' interpreation, Hebrew thinking? of Levinas interpretation of
it?...).
>Anyway: the question of Earth/World, Holy Land etc. is much more
complicated in both
>thinkings that Zarader (and Levinas) demonstrate...
>kind regards
>Rafael
>




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