Subject: RE: Levinas
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:25:18 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Bakker, R.B.M. de 
Verzonden: maandag 14 april 2003 11:56
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: RE: Levinas




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Anthony Crifasi [mailto:crifasi-AT-hotmail.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 april 2003 2:59
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: RE: Levinas


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>Levinas:
>"In the book, the proximity of the Other is presented as the fact that the
>Other is not simply close to me in space, or close like a parent, but he
>approaches me essentially insofar as I feel myself - insofar as I am -
>responsible for him. IT IS A STRUCTURE THAT IN NOWISE RESEMBLES THE
>INTENTIONAL RELATION WHICH IN KNOWLEDGE ATTACHES US TO THE OBJECT - to no
>matter what object, be it a human object. Proximity does not revert to this
>intentionality; in particular it does not revert to the fact that the Other
>is known to me."
>
>But what Levinas is saying above -and not Heidegger- is precisely what
>Kant has done: Limiting theoretical knowledge, in order to make practical
>determinations possible. The link between the two is the originary
>spontaneity of intelligence. Theoretically: original synthetical unity,
>as the condition of all (empirical) knowledge. Practically: autonomy:
>intelligence itself prescribing how every intelligence as an
>intelligence (on earth or on Mars) should behave.

For Kant yes, but for Levinas? How can you see Levinas as subordinating the 
"practical" to intelligence in that way? He goes out of his way to emphasize 
that the ethical encounter is NOT reducible to knowing. Just as Heidegger 
argues that readiness is NOT reducible to knowing.

Anthony Crifasi

I rote:

>But what Levinas is saying above -and not Heidegger- is precisely what
>Kant has done: Limiting theoretical knowledge, in order to make practical
>determinations possible.

And you did not consider it at all. What Kant did, cannot, and therefore should not be repeated, Nietzsche has dissected that: "fundamentally the old sun" (as Plato's). As is what you're doing here, athough it's almost completely dark now. You just stick to your distinction practical-theoretical, but about that is already decided, and we see the whole unsalutary consequence of your doings: precisely the one that can tear us out of our state of frozen stupidity, you use to begin it all over again.

But the problem you don't (want to) see, is that you do the same as the commies and the other butchers, Malcolm




--
Sorry Malcolm, you don't deserve to be so close to the butchers. I agree with going on practicing democracy - there's no alternative - , although the values that it is based on, have become dishonest, to say the least. But without this conscience, one immediately ranks under the ideologists. 
--

regards rene






 too : take enlightenment ideas, as if there is no history, do the same as Kant did: limit knowledge, in order to save faith (in god or in liberty) WHICH IS NO OPTION ANYMORE. That has already been done, and it led to, or could not prevent, the disasters that have been and therefore they will continue. You accused the Enlightenment of forgetting ontological difference, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
But I stop arguing. Just look at the musea that are destroyed (and leave the hospitals out of consideration). That is our dissolving nature. Read the story of Jericho in the bible.
Effacing not only everything that is living, but even all memory. The alliance with european nihilism is too untransparant. As I said, Heidegger sees deeper, he is THE philosopher now, but you just are not able to take him seriously, and you fall back upon your child  ...   -ish etc.

Your arguing presupposes the principle of ground. Whatever one says about roses being without ground, or faces that make me feel responsible, that all is extremely ephemer, as long as the POWER of the principle is working. If one cannot admit that it is working inside oneself, the rest does not matter anymore. There is a slim Shady in everyone, and there is a little Adolf in everyone. And the Semites are there as well. All the ingredients are there, and the same is gonna happen again, (Heideggerian smart-asses may add: not the 'Gleiche'.) It will be a complete different kind of mass destruction, but it will be mass destruction. Meanwhile you and all embedded intellectuals go on arguing, that is 'sufficiently' disturbing in itself. Heidegger write: why don't we fall on the ground? John seems to be the only human left, the rest is already calculating before they can feel something. 

So what I'm doing here is completely useless, and I'm a fool to expose myself to the commissares present here.

Well, one more chance:

Der Satz vom Grund, opening:

"The principle of ground says: nihil est sine ratione. One translates: nothing is without ground. What the sentence says, is clear (leuchtet ein)."

It is in fact so clear, that we don't see it. So much so, that an experiment of a groundless space leads to something like the Blair Which project, or Lynch's claustrophobic world, which are not so absurd as your everydayness suggests to you.
Talking ethics, without facing this groundlessness, is shit that can be selled. 

sh..: sold 


























 







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


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