Subject: Re: Re: Re: Routledge Guidebook to Being and Time
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:40:41 -0000


Henry, Bob

Well, I did say that the intro/interp distinction had problems, and I take
the point about a neutral zone. BTW Henry, I would appreciate your thoughts
on translation as interpretation (I'm giving a paper on this in June). But
my worry is that this has the tendency to slip into the whole debate of
absolute relativism when it comes to readings. I admit to having problems
with where to draw a line, any line, but I still think that we can, and
should, distinguish between introductions that lead us into (intro-duction,
ein-fuehrung) a text, and those that purport to, and actually do something
rather different ( I wonder how many people read Dreyfus as a substitute for
B&T; and perhaps Mulhall is generally read by those who are using it as a
supplement). I'm sure a case could be made that Mulhall's introduction is,
itself, an interpretation: I'd like to see
someone do it (and that's meant as a request, not a challenge).

So, I suppose I could have put the same warning about Mulhall. Dreyfus and
Mulhall's books are both worth reading. The bottom line is that neither -
nor Kisiel's excellent study - are a substitute for a close reading of
Heidegger himself. Nor, following that, thinking itself.

As to my problems with Dreyfus - and as I've mentioned before I have learnt
a lot from his work - I refer people to the debate on this list back in
July. I'm not sure I have much to add to that. I hope my reasons are good -
I appreciate that perhaps they are not as clear cut as Bob would want, I'm
not sure what I can do about that.

Best wishes

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: henry sholar <hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu>
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 15:36
Subject: re: Re: Re: Routledge Guidebook to Being and Time


Stuart,

Thanks for couching it in the intro/interp distinction.
I take a stong stance on transl as/is interp., and so I
wouldn't see the intro/interp distinction as any more viable.

Aren't you presupposing some "neutral" zone
in which can fall certain,
perhaps called conventional,
secondary sources.

I've not looked at Mulhall; but, I have looked at Kisiel's _GenesisÉ _
where we have a construction of B&T by way of the history of philos and
a tracing of Heidegger's work-life at the time of the writing.  With
Dreyfus, I believe, we have a commentary on the 1st division that
attempts to put Heid's scheme straightforwardly into a late-twebtieth
century English (American) interpretation.

Dreyfus attempts to introduce the reader to (what he believes is)
Heidegger's way of thinking.  Kisiel tries to explain how Heidegger
thought.

Which is a riskier introduction?  And if both lie outside the
conventional (neutral) zone, what are the characteristics that would
apply for the introduction-without-or-with-little-risk?

Kindest regards,
henry



On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:10:13 -0000 Stuart Elden
<Stuart.Elden-AT-clara.co.uk> wrote:

> Henry
>
> (For information, the other time was on the Foucault list). Well, I think
> this has been aired on the list before. Dreyfus' interpretation of
Heidegger
> is very important, interesting, etc. BUT, it is not the sort of
introduction
> to Heidegger that (say) Mulhall provides. It is something that purports to
> be an introduction, but is far more an interpretation. I know that there
are
> problems in distinguishing between introduction, interpretation, etc. (and
> Heidegger says any translation is necessarily an introduction), but
Mulhall
> seems a good example of the former, Dreyfus the latter.
>
> So, my point is: if you want an introduction (a leading into, a summary
> guide to) use Mulhall, and approach Dreyfus with caution, as his is far
more
> an interpretation.
>
> Hope this clarifies,
>
> Stuart
>


----------------------

henry sholar
hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu



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






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