Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:30:17 +0000 Subject: Re: epilogue or prologue (was: Heidegger Schemes - Hitler's 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_3129125418_1670380_MIME_Part allen scult wrote recently concerning the relationship between the man and the man's works: > The way the artist/writer/philosopher inscribes himself in his work is > between the artist and the work. It becomes the business of the reader/viewer > etc., it seems to me, only when the artist-philosopher(henceforth called just > "philosopher, for ease of handling) leaves explicit images of his particular > embodiment (as he views it) in the work, as in "self portraits" (Picasso, Van > Gogh, Nietzsche, Augustine, Montaigne, Kierkegaard etc. In such cases, > figuring the "look" (or looks)Nietzsche, for example, gives to himself in > the work becomes a part of (an inseparable, intregral part of. . .) thinking > the work itself. In the case of Nietzsche and Kiekegaard, for example, the > writer seems to present himself in a number of different guises which give > much added pleasure and meaning to the reader's work of re-assembling a full > figure cut-out version of the writer. There are a number of book length > efforts to do this with K and N, most notably, I think , Alexander Nehemas, > NIETZSCHE: LIFE AS LITERATURE, and Roger Poole, KIERKEGAARD: THE INDIRECT > COMMUNICATION. > > Mention has recently been made by Rene and others of Safranski's hustle in > this regard. It doesn't even read as a good story, because the the thing that > makes the man's life worth living and recounting is missing. If the destining > passion of Heidegger's thinking lent itself to any sort of biographical story, > Heidegger himself would have to have found a way to tell it ( as Nietzsche > did). But the only "look" we find portrayed in Heidegger's serious work is a > fleeting glimpse of his mind as it tries to keep up with language. Nobody was > better at drawing pictures of the mind in motion. Focusing on the little body > is a distraction for small minds. Allen (ponitificating) An initial short answer [paid work pending...] to your strangely surprising response, Allen: I was not really thinking of a philosophically well-informed biography, rather, in this case, a way to discover a way that is intimate with both history (as depicted, roughly by historiography, concrete events, etc) and being-historical thinking (Heidegger's thinking). Even more roughly, I do not think it need be totally idle curiosity to find important those 'events' in Heidegger's life, viz, the liaisoning with the important Jewish thinker, Arendt; the liaison with the National Socialists (and the subsequent distancings); and the post-war 'silence' vis-a-vis the Holocaust... important in that such 'events' and 'turns' might be of the nature of 'correspondences' with being-historical thinking... I'm sure I'm getting mixed up here, but surely (?) the body is not all that gets caught up in 'history'. And does not 'history' include its very thinking in some non-idealistique way? Back to 'work', with regards michaelPontificating too --MS_Mac_OE_3129125418_1670380_MIME_Part
HTML VERSION:
> The way the artist/writer/philosopher inscribes himself in his work is
> between the artist and the work. It becomes the business of the reader/viewer
> etc., it seems to me, only when the artist-philosopher(henceforth called just
> "philosopher, for ease of handling) leaves explicit images of his particular
> embodiment (as he views it) in the work, as in "self portraits" (Picasso, Van
> Gogh, Nietzsche, Augustine, Montaigne, Kierkegaard etc. In such cases,
> figuring the "look" (or looks)Nietzsche, for example, gives to himself in
> the work becomes a part of (an inseparable, intregral part of. . .) thinking
> the work itself. In the case of Nietzsche and Kiekegaard, for example, the
> writer seems to present himself in a number of different guises which give
> much added pleasure and meaning to the reader's work of re-assembling a full
> figure cut-out version of the writer. There are a number of book length
> efforts to do this with K and N, most notably, I think , Alexander Nehemas,
> NIETZSCHE: LIFE AS LITERATURE, and Roger Poole, KIERKEGAARD: THE INDIRECT
> COMMUNICATION.
>
> Mention has recently been made by Rene and others of Safranski's hustle in
> this regard. It doesn't even read as a good story, because the the thing that
> makes the man's life worth living and recounting is missing. If the destining
> passion of Heidegger's thinking lent itself to any sort of biographical story,
> Heidegger himself would have to have found a way to tell it ( as Nietzsche
> did). But the only "look" we find portrayed in Heidegger's serious work is a
> fleeting glimpse of his mind as it tries to keep up with language. Nobody was
> better at drawing pictures of the mind in motion. Focusing on the little body
> is a distraction for small minds.
Allen (ponitificating)
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005