File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0106, message 75


Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:40:08 -0500
From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: Re: The misunderstanding statement 2


Henk and Michael,

Needless to say, on this one, I come down on the side of Henk, 
rhetoric, and Bourbon, though not necessarily in that order.

In the Sophist lectures, Heidegger admires Plato for being able to 
"think the sophist in himself," and to display that thinking 
philosophically.  Heidegger recognized Plato in all the key 
characters in the Dialogues.  Socrates doesn't see the joke, of 
course, but we do, and so learn from Plato what Socrates himself 
might have known but could never say outright:  That the philosopher 
is distinguished from the sophist only by the capaciousness of his 
"rhetorical how"--that is by HOW he is able to put his understanding 
to words in the context of being-with.  There are key passages, 
especially in the Phaedrus and the Apology, where one can "see" 
dialectic becoming rhetoric in the course of Socrates' speech, and 
then rising to heights beyond the reach of dialectic. It is Plato's 
genius to show us, to demonstrate philosophy as a possibility of 
existence by thinking the sophist in himself on the way to 
philosophy, and through his capacious word-making to almost get us 
there.

Michael says:

>Rather, I want to maintain a distinction between rhetoric and philosophizing.

I think everyone cognizant of the inherent duplicity of language 
wants to maintain that distinction in order that what they say be 
distinguished from the "rhetoric" of the they. This insistence is 
probably strongest on the part of politicians, theologians, and 
philosophers.  What makes Plato ( and by implication, Heidegger, 
because he understands it) stand out, rising above the rhetorical 
chatter of the rest of us, is that they are able to put their 
recognition of the impossibility of making the distinction in 
practice into practice! ( I think the last sentence has to be read 
twice to be understood)

As to the bourbon matter, as Henk suggests, eke-stasis is eke-stasis 
irrespective of what you happen to be eating or drinking at the time. 
I've known some philosophers whose focus on the relevant ambiguities 
was extraordinary while supposedly under the influence.  I remember 
that night in the Symposium. . .

Allen


-- 
Professor Allen Scult					Dept. of Philosophy
HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics":		Drake 
University
http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html		Des 
Moines, Iowa 50311
PHONE: 515 271 2869
FAX: 515 271 3826


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005