Subject: no longer Re: Routledge Guidebook to Being and Time
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:51:48 -0500


Stuart,

many thanks for your response and I'd put us closer to the same set of
oars (viz., a mutual brig) than you'd expect; i burn candles for
dreyfus nightly, though.

i'd hafta look back into the ancient evenings again (as with Foucault)
but right off the top i expect i look for some kind of machinery by way
of ricoeur (interp & the surplus of meaning; the conflict of interps)
or gadamer.  wittgenstein, as i remember it, _on certainty_ was also a
good humus for pondering interp/transl/relativism, solipsism,
liberalism, generosity, and just having a sweet smile on your face=C9
sorry, its early here!

thanks again for your reply, if i collect or recollect anything
interesting i'll surely try it on you.

(ps) i read a mostly incoherent NY Times review of a posthumous book by
Gellner, promoted as anti-wittgenstein.  do you know what that is about?




On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:40:41 -0000 Stuart Elden
<Stuart.Elden-AT-clara.co.uk> wrote:

> 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 _Genesis=C9 _
> 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 ---


henry sholar
hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu



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