Subject: RE: Fichte - rider Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:46:25 +0200 From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: michaelP [mailto:michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 12 september 2003 17:33 Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU Onderwerp: Re: Fichte - rider on 12/9/03 3:55 pm, Bakker, R.B.M. de at R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl wrote: > (Likewise, all 'critics' of the Latin, of the > fundamental changes it brings to Greek notions, can be no critics, because > without Rome and Caesar we and you would not even be here and there) Rene, it has suddenly ( and I'm so so s l o w ) occurred in a shattering way (thunderbolt & lightening, very very frightening...) to me that you are a 'carrier' of Nietzsche's amor fati: how could anything have been different to what it is and has been, even an atom, etc. There is something so simultaneously liberating and hideous about that notion that I feel you embody in your writing, but, how can have ever been other in any way? And how could I not respond with this thunderbolt surprise? :-) regards mP Nietzsche proudly wrote that the beat of his heart was extremely slow. Slow is good for understanding necessity. It's a sign of strength: it does not allow itself to be dragged on by Florence Nightingale's or other sentimentalities. Bob Scheetz: cardinal bourgeois piety. ........................... in a world where the norm is the somme and verdun and auschwitz and nagasaki, (Edward Teller was at least man enough to say that Nagasaki was a mistake, and that the showing of weapons would have been enough. "Mistake" means here: massive crime. Why are the Theresians so silent on these things?) Not necessity, I'd say, of the process itself, but mystery, perhaps now more than ever, while it is not seen. (dove-feet noise) Is not necessity itself something mysterious (and therefore not an end but a beginning?) I myself was rather thinking of Heidegger and the Thai monk. That one should realize where one is coming from. But amor fati does it too. I mean: get torn off suddenly from one's commonplaces. But I would keep Nietzsche's quasi-scientific exemplifications of ER at a distance, and follow Heidegger in that ER is mysterious and REMAINS mysterious, and that atoms don't help. They organize matter, but disintegrate thinking. Remember that Heidegger emphasizes that ER is only in the THINKING of ER. I, for my part, remembered again lately your "Has it to be always so difficult"? Heidegger: the near, the easy is for us the difficult. "The nearest of the near." To get where we always already are, and not to lie: I guess that is H's contribution to the god question. regards rene --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005