Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:33:30 -0600 From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu> Subject: Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left --Boundary_(ID_hbaOqqDXv8eHAlTCauoWnw) At 8:01 PM +0000 2/19/02, Michael Pennamacoor wrote: >Michael said: > >...one then belongs to the matter-to-hand, or rather, the >matter-not-to-hand, and language then becomes not a simple (or >complex) medium for the expression of one's thinking, but more the >very site for the thinking to take place. Thus, as you say, such a >display of language in this strenuous attempt to think (being), can >make one vulnerable to potential ridicule or accusations of >pretentiousness and such. But, perhaps more importantly, maybe it >should be so, the vulnerability, that we risk the venture with >language, that such a venture might enable us to hear the klang, the >call, of language itself, the housing, the dwelling-place, of >being...? > >Then Allen: > > >Michael, > >Do you mean to suggest that the vulnerablity to potential ridicule, >accusations of pretentiousness etc. are somehow an enabling >dimension of the language of thinking, or simply a side effect >which must be dealt with "interpersonally" as part of doing business >in philosophy? And if the former, should one seek out venues of >expression in which this vulnerability is likely to be greater? > >Allen, > >I think I mean that in venturing the game with the language of >thinking (being) one has to become open to being and language and >thus one is vulnerable to the influx of certain charges... I do not >think I mean that vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of >pretentiousness etc. are themselves enabling but might well >accompany the risk of the game and one should only bother with >interpersonal dealings that devolve from such as a matter of the >'social' and business course (or not) of doing philosophy. I'm not >sure what you mean by venues of expression -- could you elucidate? I >just feel that the openness (to being) that is thinking insinuates >and reflects itself in the taking language to the limits of its >ordinary comprehensibility and usage and this might make one >vulnerable, etc. And this has nothing to do with any false >linguistic bad behaviour (philosophers behaving badly, anyone?). Is >this an answer or another question? > >michaelP Michael, You've answered my question quite nicely; I mean in a way which satisfies my own self-serving view of my rather "uneven" relationships with different philosophical audiences--relationships splattered with painful rejections of the value of my "limit language," as well as some occasional appreciations of a difficult communication mutually understood ( Sichverstehen). As you suggest, one needs to decide which critiques to take to heart, and which to write off as business losses. Here are some words to this effect from Hannah Arendt which I quoted some weeks ago , ". . . for a cultivated man of taste is one who knows how to choose his company among men, among thoughts, in the present as well as in the past. Taste decides not only how the world is to look, but who belongs together in it." regards, Allen -- 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 --Boundary_(ID_hbaOqqDXv8eHAlTCauoWnw)
HTML VERSION:
Michael said:
...one then belongs to the matter-to-hand, or rather, the matter-not-to-hand, and language then becomes not a simple (or complex) medium for the expression of one's thinking, but more the very site for the thinking to take place. Thus, as you say, such a display of language in this strenuous attempt to think (being), can make one vulnerable to potential ridicule or accusations of pretentiousness and such. But, perhaps more importantly, maybe it should be so, the vulnerability, that we risk the venture with language, that such a venture might enable us to hear the klang, the call, of language itself, the housing, the dwelling-place, of being...?
Then Allen:
Michael,
Do you mean to suggest that the vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of pretentiousness etc. are somehow an enabling dimension of the language of thinking, or simply a side effect which must be dealt with "interpersonally" as part of doing business in philosophy? And if the former, should one seek out venues of expression in which this vulnerability is likely to be greater?
Allen,
I think I mean that in venturing the game with the language of thinking (being) one has to become open to being and language and thus one is vulnerable to the influx of certain charges... I do not think I mean that vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of pretentiousness etc. are themselves enabling but might well accompany the risk of the game and one should only bother with interpersonal dealings that devolve from such as a matter of the 'social' and business course (or not) of doing philosophy. I'm not sure what you mean by venues of expression -- could you elucidate? I just feel that the openness (to being) that is thinking insinuates and reflects itself in the taking language to the limits of its ordinary comprehensibility and usage and this might make one vulnerable, etc. And this has nothing to do with any false linguistic bad behaviour (philosophers behaving badly, anyone?). Is this an answer or another question?
michaelP
--