From: "Blank" <gulio-AT-sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: '
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:31:46 -0400



----- Original Message -----
From: allen scult <amscult-AT-drake.edu>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>;
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: '


>   He
> > is some kind of
> > neokantian as I read him but as in GA24 he says that he is
> > trying to get at
> > what is "hidden" in Kant and so he follows the old
> > hermeneutic maxim that
> > one needs to understand a thinker better than he
> > understood himself.
> > Whatever thinker one reads I think one has to assume
> > lucidity,
>
> Gulio,
>
> Images of light always intrigue me.  I'd be interested in
> what
> you mean by "assuming lucidity" here.  I'd also like to
> suggest
> some other "light images."  The most prominent one borrowed
> from
> Virginia Wolfe is "incandescence."  The words of the great
> thinker have an incandescence which lights what's around
> them
> from inside.
>
> that the guy
> > knows what is talking 'about'.
>
> This seems inconsistent with my understanding of
> philosophical
> hermeneutics.  What allows the words to be "lit," from
> within
> and to light the way for their own proceeding is presicely a
> directed(determinate) sense of not "knowing what is talking
> about."  I think Gadamer developed this hermeneutical
> connection
> with  Socratic method much further than Heidegger did, and I
> would even say, much more explicitly ( some might say too
> explicitly) than P
>
>
 I forget my Gadamer but Heidegger developes the whole question regarding
the limit of empirical knowledge starting with Kant as well as anybody has
done. He is a western thinker so an appearance is going to have a certain
brilliance to it, a beauty. But if the horizon has that which can't be known
then that is just the way it remains concealed, remains an enigma. This dark
spot would be a sort of light in the dark, a guide of somekind beyond the
knowable horizon, beyng beyond essence. By assuming lucidity I mean just
following the thought because you trust it to be true and if it isn't then
that would show itself at its limit. The hardest thing is knowing why
Heidegger is wrong and that can only be done by following the thought to its
end. The "thing themselves" perhaps could be said as operating like the
traditional symbol. It's their enigma that carries interpretation forward
and that is phenomenological seeing. But this is how we also ask each other
questions in a conversation. Problems arise, it seems, from when people
assume that they understand what someone else says or who someone could be.
There doesn't seem to be any pure clarity but it is another level of
understanding when any conversation folds on itself and in this way becomes
reflective. The content becomes conversation where others and their language
are things themselves so to speak.  It's impossible to avoid this sort of
triangulation of who you are, what a conversation is, and how Heidegger's
phenomenology proceeds. The word reflection itself points to a back and
forth play that is there in the interconnectedness of Dasein and the things
themselves which happens in Dasein's transcendence or freedom which is one
of the things( an event really) that Heidegger means by coming into history,
genesis of history, birth of the word in the end of intentionality to put in
somewhat Thomistic terms, or maybe not.

Gulio



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



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