Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:51:49 +0200 From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred) Subject: Re: Denial Cologne 23-Sep-2003 Henk van Tuijl schrieb Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:23:04 +0200: > From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> > To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:09 AM > Subject: undenial > > > on 22/9/03 11:34 pm, Henk van Tuijl at hvtuijl-AT-xs4all.nl wrote: > > > > > "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, of course I and everyone else knows what the statement speaks in that > > way... but what about in a genuinely philosophical, or better, thinkerly > > way, is what I meant (after all, to the Judites' chagrin, Heidegger spent > > his entire life working up that question, so viewing such statements with > > everyday shallowness does not bespeak well of TheList ). > > > > Anyone dig deeper? > > My reference to Clinton was meant to illustrate that it is pure sophistry to > put the question of being in relation to Heidegger's Nazism. > > I'm am sorry to notice that even this simple remark was - already - far too > deep for you to understand. > > It is obvious that you have no clue what Heidegger's philosophy is about. I > leave your to your senseless mantra's. > > Henk > Henk, Your remark above ("it is pure sophistry to put the question of being in relation to Heidegger's Nazism") is very interesting coming from your mouth. The well-worn strategy of using the brown brush to tar Heidegger's thinking relies heavily on just that -- suggestively putting the question of being into relation with Heidegger's Nazism. It saves a whole lot of work and especially a whole lot of thinking just suggesting the relation. But if there is no relation ("it is pure sophistry"), then Heidegger's Nazism is completely irrelevant, because the only reason the man Heidegger is important at all is that he was a thinker. Then we'd have to do something with this thinker's thinking. Adorno has it much easier. The media (newspapers, radio, new books, even some TV) recently were packed with pieces to commemorate his hundredth birthday, but even then it was pointed out that Adorno does not have the philosophical weight compared to some other German thinkers. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact-AT-t-online.de _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005