File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0107, message 28


Subject: RE: LanguageIsTheHouseOfBeing
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:48:40 -0700


thank you michael and thank you for your many contribution over the years.

i've reviewing some of polt's commentary re thinking and dreyfus' words on
metaphor. i'll post some tit-bits. maybe you'll be willing to comment on
their reading of H.

bob

i've recently bought polt's new translation of: _Introduction to
Metaphysics_. it's gotten great press. have you read any of his work?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Michael
> Eldred
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:22 PM
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: LanguageIsTheHouseOfBeing
>
>
> Cologne 05-Jul-2001
>
> Bob Guevara schrieb   Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:05:02 -0700:
>
> > i dunno michael.
> >
> > i like polt.
> > i like dreyfus.
> >
> > it sure seems like you should be very widely published given
> your superior
> > grasp of H's work and given your predictable pattern of reaction to
> > commentary not your own.
> >
> > why aren't you?
>
> Bob,
>
> Another tit-bit from Heidegger on the powerful influence of
> Plato's thinking on
> Western thinking: "But can it be assumed without further ado that
> the greatness
> of a thinking can be reckoned from the length and breadth of its
> effects and can
> be assessed according to the extent of the approbation it
> enjoys?" (_Was heisst
> denken?_ S.112 "What calls for thinking?")
>
> "To want to understand a thinker immanently (lit.: from out of
> himself) means
> something different from the attempt to question a thinker's
> questioning into
> the questionability of what this thinker has thought. The former
> is impossible.
> The latter is rare and is the most difficult thing." (S.113)
>
> The attempt to question into questionability (even Heidegger's
> thinking) is what
> calls for thinking. That is worlds removed from merely talking about the
> "seductiveness" of Heidegger's "rhetoric", the "imagery" of his
> "metaphors",
> etc. Who is audacious enough to attempt this "most difficult
> thing", to think?
> (Of course at the near certain risk of failing.)
>
> Michael
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact-AT-webcom.com
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
> >
> > for me [a very pedestrian fan of H's as you well know], metaphorical
> > speaking is a sort've proto-saying. how else to reveal something totally
> > "new?" ...something from no-thing but through speaking and
> listening such
> > that the [new] phenomenon comes into view for all concerned.
> >
> > bob
> >
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005