Subject: RE: journalized leo strauss
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:47:03 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


Pete That wrote:

Vis a vis Heidegger, the thing I find interesting about Strauss is his response
to H's deconstruction of Platonic metaphysics: rather than falling back on the
pre-Socratics as the untainted source of pure philosophy, instead try to 
re-interpret Plato and Aristotle without metaphysics.

  So here is a point that necessarily interests philosophers who wanna know
  about Geschichte. Because Geschichte would, behind our backs, determine the
  possibilities and impossibilities of mankind now. That's what I call basic
  Heidegger questioning. I mean: does one wanna know something one does not
  know yet, or does one only want to be confirmed in what one already knows?
  
  The question that comes HEREAFTER is: If we wanna know sthing new, are we
  able to? And this regards the gigantic problem of subjectivity.  


Now, Strauss writes to Loewith:

The conception I sketch has nothing at all to do with Heidegger, as Heidegger gives merely a refined interpretation of modern historicism, "anchors" it "ontologically." For with Heidegger, "historicity" has made nature disappear completely, which however has the merit of consistency and compels one to reflect.

I'm not sure, what Strauss means, but Loewith, in his answer, writes bluntly, that Heidegger has made "nature" disappear.
But what about physis and natural nature?

But see my question as to nature in BT. It has aroused not much interest on the side of contradiction-free, but elephant-fleeing philosophers. What Loewith does, is always a possibility: close your eyes and go your own way, as he did with Dasein.
Till the day came when he ran into Heidegger, who, with one simple question, made the fella crumble.

rene






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