Subject: RE: Denial
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:00:52 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Henk van Tuijl [mailto:hvtuijl-AT-xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: dinsdag 23 september 2003 11:11
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Denial


I see what you mean. I cannot read the Origin without being reminded of
"Triumph des Willen". 


   Out of widerwille. I am reminded of Moerike, and a Greek temple on a rocky
   mountain, world and earth, van Gogh and the 'speaking' of the painting 
   (die Sprache spricht). Why should i think of triumphant hollowness?
   I did, when recently Leni Riefenstahl died at the age of 101.
   
   Meanwhile one can laugh about Nazi manifestations - as did the French in
   their movies, they labeled german gymnastics nudism  - but looking now 
   at the opening of the Olympic games, it's the same idea. All the mockery
   and worse  -in this respect the Dutch have belonged to the most loathsome,
   but i still would help them against a Hitler- just blinds for what in nazism
   was modern. We just dont want to know - out of widerwille - out of guilt
   conscience - out of fear. A bit more modesty please, Joachim Fest declared,
   that after a whole life dedicated to Hitler, he still felt that at bottom
   he did not understand. 

The question is whether I should read the Origin in an
absolute way - outside being and time.

  Of course not, it is not Platonian eternity, we are at the other end.
  The idea is how to hold fast to what is inexorably escaping, and not succumb
  to widerwille, blame others for the growing void. So the opposite of what
  actually has happened. Instead of "H was a nazi", we'd better concentrate
  on "H resigned in 1934". When Hitler's Germany was from the beginning so
  beasty as Jud paints it, that must have been an act of great bravery.
  


You know the answer. The young Heidegger continually stresses that what we
do is in line with our basic attitude (Grundhaltung), i.e. what we have
become and how we understand ourselves.

Henk
   

   Something so vague and general cannot be an answer. Real answers can
   only be, where there are questions. H's meditations concerning the work
   of art  - engaged philosophically with openness, not esthetically with
   artistic expression, as a human activity  - contain these questions.
   They put the understanding of ourselves, however fundamental, into
   question, by indicating that not man's subjectivity is to be enlarged,
   but that he should search/find an open dimension, that must somehow be
   'closed', gedichtet. Also history, historical thinking and dichten,
   might appear differently then. 
   I agree, though, that we have to *begin* with the young Heidegger.   
  
   Rene



  


  


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