Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:32:26 +0000
Subject: epilogue or prologue (was: Heidegger Schemes  - Hitler's Plans)
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3129114746_1028505_MIME_Part

I wrote a while back the below in response to Nouri's interesting point... I
should like to add that there have been attempts to philosophically discuss
Heidegger's political/life choices in terms of his thinking, (and, for
myself, I should not wish to entertain any other kind of attempt to link the
man's life and his works, especially those that smack of an unphilosophical,
even antiphilosophical, vulgar muck-raking or grotesque McCarthyesque
accusational 'questioning', and especially on this list), and I can suggest
three that stand out for me (with very rough viewpoints in square brackets).

* Adorno's 'The Jargon of Authenticity' [Marxist]
* Derrida's 'Of Spirit' [deconstruction]
* Rosen's 'Nihilism' [analytical philosophy]

If anyone would like to have the complete references and some quotes for
starters, or have other sources beyond my three above, please let me know.
Could this be an epilogue or prologue to philosophically discussing the
relationship between Martin Heidegger the man and Heidegger's thinking (as
displayed in the works)?

regards

michaelPeace


on 20/2/03 6:56 pm, Nouri gana at nouri_gana-AT-yahoo.fr wrote:

> despite all the postmodern, even New Critical, evocations of the death of the
> author and the liberation of the work, we are still, at least in this list,
> unable to pry apart what we are trying to discuss: the man or the work.

hi Nouri, what has always bothered me on this list is that despite a long
history of confusing the man with the works, we seem to lack the philosophic
means to distinguish or relate them; i.e., to mobilise that form of
philosophic discourse that could appropriate such relationships? (say, in
order to demonstrate, reveal, the existence of that 'factual, concrete,
living, etc' Martin Heidegger in those historical times, etc, as the very
same author of or authority for certain concrete works and texts, as an
'inevitability', as 'necessary', as'destiny'; say, more focussedly, given a
topic that worms its way up to the surface time after time on this list,
Martin Heidegger the so-called 'Nazi' and the relationship to his major
works, i.e., and even more focussed, are the works, the texts,
manifestations, surfacings, of his so-called political affiliations?). I ask
where in the world do we get the thinking necessary to unfold, to display
such relationships? From self-righteous tabloidal fury? From old-fashioned
positivistic relics of a philosophy? From the mistaken pride and pomp of
know-it-all 'self-evidence' and commonsense? I don't think so... Even in the
most backwardly positivistic sense, we surely need (in their terms) a
'theory' of the historical production of texts, speeches, etc, and their
relationships with the concrete conditions of their very production and
consumption and distribution. Finally, going back to a small point I've been
fumbling with recently, in this milieu, are we not veering into the relation
between topic (the entire problematic of , say, Heidegger's output) and
resource (from whence this output, where is it coming from?)...

regards

michaelP 


--MS_Mac_OE_3129114746_1028505_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

on 20/2/03 6:56 pm, Nouri gana at nouri_gana-AT-yahoo.fr wrote:

> despite all the postmodern, even New Critical, evocations of the death of the
> author and the liberation of the work, we are still, at least in this list,
> unable to pry apart what we are trying to discuss: the man or the work.  

hi Nouri, what has always bothered me on this list is that despite a long history of confusing the man with the works, we seem to lack the philosophic means to distinguish or relate them; i.e., to mobilise that form of philosophic discourse that could appropriate such relationships? (say, in order to demonstrate, reveal, the existence of that 'factual, concrete, living, etc' Martin Heidegger in those historical times, etc, as the very same author of or authority for certain concrete works and texts, as an 'inevitability', as 'necessary', as'destiny'; say, more focussedly, given a topic that worms its way up to the surface time after time on this list, Martin Heidegger the so-called 'Nazi' and the relationship to his major works, i.e., and even more focussed, are the works, the texts, manifestations, surfacings, of his so-called political affiliations?). I ask where in the world do we get the thinking necessary to unfold, to display such relationships? From self-righteous tabloidal fury? From old-fashioned positivistic relics of a philosophy? From the mistaken pride and pomp of know-it-all 'self-evidence' and commonsense? I don't think so... Even in the most backwardly positivistic sense, we surely need (in their terms) a 'theory' of the historical production of texts, speeches, etc, and their relationships with the concrete conditions of their very production and consumption and distribution. Finally, going back to a small point I've been fumbling with recently, in this milieu, are we not veering into the relation between topic (the entire problematic of , say, Heidegger's output) and resource (from whence this output, where is it coming from?)...

regards

michaelP