File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0105, message 12

Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:40:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Ge-lassen-heit

At 02:36 3-5-01 +0100, Jan wrote:

>>Could there be a world WITH men, but without Dasein?

>if men is essentially Dasein, then NO

But, because Dasein is always a possibillity, it is imaginable, that it merges
completely into its state of Verfallenheit. Everything points into the
it can find happiness there. The 'last man'. 

rene (kant):
>>Now, because empirical knowledge is only possible through impression,
>>impression must also be self-impression, Selbst-Affektion. See in the
>>deduction: the determination of the inner form (Bestimmung des inneren
>>It is the decision of reason, as self-consciousness, to become the empirical
>>subject, that eventually makes experiments.

>if i understand you (and Kant) here correctly you are saying that
>the conditions of the possibility of experience (knowledge) are in
>essence the same as the conditions of the possibility of the objects
>of experience (reality)

I don't say this, I'm just trying to understand what subject/object is in
because if I don't do this sufficiently, I'm not able to 'destruct' it in
order to have
the space, wherein or as which Dasein and Gelassenheit can appear.

Who understands this principle, understands the whole Critique of pure reason,
H.  says. If these conditions are really the same, the sentence  must be
read both ways,
from left to right and from right to left (and what's between brackets
 Kant is not looking for objects of knowledge, he determines that
reflection is 
necessary with regard to everything, to BECOME an object for me. 
Outside this sphere, which Kant calls the mainland of reason, and
Heidegger subjectivity, it makes no sense talking about what exists outside.
(Inside/outside are themselves Kantian Reflexionsbegriffe.)

>>Kant is by the way transcendental idealist and empirical realist at the
>>same time.
>yeh, TI and ER, according to Bhaskar it was/is this notorious couple
>that has kept (an is keeping) modern science in the devastating grip
>of Positivism

Positivism is in the grip of modern science. Nietzsche calls it the
religion of
the 'petits faits". Heidegger calls it the pre-eminence of the being over
against Being.
What more reality does science need, than it has today? It's the motor of
the world.

The 1951 text I have not here. In my subjective memory:
Heidegger: Anything can be proven.
Staiger: Not anything,  only the right (das Richtige). You perform
philology too.
Heidegger:  Good, philology is not natural science.  [but this is only
sweet for Staiger]
There is just something disturbing about science, apart from the
catastrophal enormities
it has brought.  I've never been able to explain, why it works. But it
seems you can always 
start somewhere, anywhere, and then calculate back, what must be, when this

>are there positivist traces in Heidegger ? what do you think ?

Insofar as he holds, that economy and armament/Ruestung are now
the main positive realities.
>>>i would say the crux of experiments is "doing something", it
>>>is the practical (manipulative) side of 'putting questions to nature',
>>>and the fact that experiments are possible (and even neccesary)
>>Necessary only, to go on.
>but can we go back then ?
>can we turn the arrow of time ?
>[ok, some avant-garde physicists claim they can do it, but (only) in
>'exotic' experimental settings]

Heidegger wants to go back to an 'earlier' time. 
Langeweile is also time. 

boring, eh?


drs. René de Bakker
Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
Afdeling Catalogisering 
tel. 020-5252368              

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005