From: "Henk van Tuijl" <hvtuijl-AT-xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: Denial Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:34:41 +0200 From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Denial > on 22/9/03 5:52 pm, Henk van Tuijl at hvtuijl-AT-xs4all.nl wrote: > > > Oppose what? Heidegger apologetics? Since no one denies any longer that > > Heidegger was a Nazi, there is nothing to oppose. > > Henk, should we not be asking here on this list of all lists what "was" > means? > It's not a matter of opposition but of position, of shifting > shuffling edging into the fit; what does the statement *say* (as opposed [!] > to what it speaks)? > A whole notion of history or histories lies haunting > this seemingly obvious statement of so-called fact; ... > ... i.e., shouldn't we on > this list be discussing what statements of fact *are*, the be-ing of > facticity, how facts *are*? > Not a matter of apologogetics [!] or denials > or > accusations or supportings (etc), but what? thinking? perhaps... Michael, IIRC Clinton once did ask what "is" meant - to avoid a straightforward answer to the question if he "was sexually involved" with Lewinsky. Clinton's question was not philosophical one, IMHO. "Heidegger was a Nazi" tells us what Heidegger became after his return to Freiburg and how he did understand himself from that moment on. He could have become a member of the Bekennende Kirche or could have remained an outsider but that was not his understanding of himself. Henk --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005