Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:09:01 -0500 From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu> Subject: Re: thinking in style >Cologne 31-May-2003 > >allen scult schrieb Fri, 30 May 2003 11:09:35 -0500: > >> >>> You mean rather "Serve yourself"? Help your self? To come to a >> >>> stand. >> >>> Nietzsche calls this "Eitelkeit" -- "vanity", a positive force in >> >>> human being. >> >> >> >> Hi Michael, If I understand you,I agree that the vanity of whichyou >> >> speak can be a positive force in philosophizing. It leadsone to risk >> >> speaking while still unsure what one is saying, and,of course, to >> >> speak as if one is more sure than one is (while not toosure). Said >> >> vanity also spurs one to speak as though what they have to sayis of >> >> value to a given community (of philosophers, say). Nietzsche, bless >> >> his heart,took what we might call "the vain style" further than one >> >> would think possible, and pulledit off, thereby achieving what he >> >> himself called "the grand style": "The grand style consists in >> >> contempt for the trivial and brief beauty;it is a sense for what is >> >> rare and what lasts long" But the Dylan quote refers to what is >> >> required to fully appreciate, perhapseven to understand, philosophy >> >> that is written in the the vain, if not the grand style.And that is >> >> love, which among other things, leads one to retract one's critical >> >> fangs, and to drawcloser and closer to the worded body of the master, >> >> that is, Dasein as being-with. . .somebody. Andthe open-ness of >> >> being-with can come to implicate you in the being of the other, such >> >> that you findyourself drawing up alongside, catching up to the other >> >> who has "leaped ahead." And so you choose to be in service to the >> >> other. Better out of love, than out of. . .Well here's the rest of >> >> the song, so you can judge for yourself who's right, and who owes >> >> whom: >> > >> >Gruess Dich, Allen! >> > >> >I think one (I) can read Nietzsche's "Eitelkeit" as a central >> >phenomenon, and that not just for philosophers. It kinda stands out in >> >"Menschliches, Allzumenschliches" -- along with "Ehre" (honour), >> >"Schmeichelei" (flattery) and suchlike. >> >> Of course, what is right for philosophers, must, in some sense be >> right for everyone, but >> for philosophers, it must be thoughtfully so(or else philosophers are >> just like everyone else, >> which, of course, they are, in the bedroom, at the dinner table, >> etc. But when a philosopher speaks, >> especially concerning speech, he speaks thinkingly. And so the >> rhetorical/stylistic excesses of his speech, >> giving it the color and light of Eitelkeit, Ehre, Schmeichelei etc. >> have to do with the appropriate saying-showing(off) >> of WHO we are--as you say: >> >> >: Not only beings show >> >themselves of themselves as what they are, but we human beings show >> >ourselves off as who we are. Such showing off can be mere vanity (an >> >inappropriate, falsely appropriated mask), or it can be genuine vanity, >> >i.e. the self-confidence to show oneself off in the defining stand which >> >one has been able to fashion for one's self -- by courtesy, of course, >> >of the open nothingness of being. Being vain -- standing presence >> >appropriately adopted. >> >> The possibility of becoming "who" we are is the essence of the >>particularity of >> Dasein as being-in-the-world. Insofar as the philosopher writes as >> some-body(not >> much choice there) he must deal with the delicate, issues of style >> and being-with. And here I think love >> enters the picture in two ways. First of all, on the part of the >> writing/speaking philosopher: He must >> love what he creates. And second, to understand and appreciate what >> the philosopher says, we must love >> his style, how says himself in words. > >Allen, >I find myself agreeing.The philosopher has the responsibility to >speak and write >thoughtfully, thinkingly. That is the philosopher's face (_eidos_), >the look s/he >shows off to the world. > >The love you speak of is a treasuring, an estimating, and it is true that >philosophy is not possible without the two aspects of love that you speak of. Michael, I can't let an opportunity to cite one of my favorite hermeneutical principles pass without so citing. More like a re-citing, reminiscient of those liturgical recitings which are used to help those needful, to stay focused(obviously a black hole in my philosophical make-up). It's from Augustine. I recite it in the Latin, for purposes of my own self-enhancing edification: Dilige et quod vis fac, usually translated, " Love, and do what you will." But the "love" here is a diligent care for what is to be served. esteemed, honored ,treasured: Therapeuo, as your Woerterbuch so diligently defines it. The "do what you will," means to set free the embodied hermeneutical passions to embrace ("be embraced by," [Who can ever tell, for sure, who's doing what to whom?]) the words of the speaker (I had some stronger Phaedrus-like imagery in mind, but didn't, out of respect for some of our less mature readers). More to say on your reference to Fuersorge, but I must away. Later! 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 --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005