File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0309, message 50


Subject: RE: God and Philosophy
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:39:32 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: allen scult [mailto:allen.scult-AT-drake.edu]
Verzonden: donderdag 4 september 2003 19:34
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: RE: God and Philosophy

>    In the thirties  - i believe somewhere in the Beitraege -  Heidegger
>    criticizes his own usage of the combination 'human Dasein'. Dasein
>    is not of itself 'des Menschen' (gen.subj.), nothing human, therefore
>    Heidegger proposes, that one better say: Das Dasein im Menschen, like
>    in the Kant book, but also: Der Mensch im Dasein'.
>
>    The goal seems to be to abstain from all that is known: gods, men, animals
>    flowers (the rose), because when there is no truth (metaphysics as the
>    truth about what is) anymore, but rather 'nothing', that only this 
>    nothing can lead to a (necessary) new understanding, but not beings (god
>    is a being too) of which the Being has become nothing.
>    rene
>

Rene,

The abstention from all that is "known" is precisely what I meant to 
point to in my response to Michael yesterday.  How does one 
observe/think/investigate (teorein)the nothing of Being's becoming
which becomes evident through said abstention?  The knowing language
of metaphysics misses the point, of course.  But the circumspective
observation  of Dasein in the "how" of its grounded, but at the same 
time far-reaching movement toward, gives thinking a "moving" focus,
which overcomes metaphysical presumptions.  That movement necessarily
incorporates Dasein's  "past" which is not passed, but rather is and
always has been "futural."  The "becoming nothing" you speak of is is
essential to the retrieval of authentic historicity in contemporary
theology (so-called negative theology) as well as philosophy.

Regards,

Allen


  Allen,
  

  By "becoming nothing" i meant nihilism, and understood thus, you would
  mean by this last sentence that contemporary theo- and philosophy 
  succeed in not leaving out the staying out.

  Heidegger once says of his own occupation that it is 'a kind of negative
  theology', meaning, i think, not historically real negative theology, but,
  because it is really incomparable (einzig, only) something like it, maybe
  something near to it. 

  Still another thing is that even the best intentions to overcome sthing
  are not good enough, instead they are the biggest obstacle. They are
  phrased in words, that have an intentionality of their own, that is 
  determined by the history of metaphysics, the only history there is now.
  At this moment I'm speaking these words too.
  Now we have sthing strange, it is called Dasein, and many follow Heidegger
  in that it must be non-metaphysical. But this move does not guarantee any
  overcoming. It is, on the contrary, right at the start more metaphysical
  than metaphysics, because it presents itself as sthing better.     
  (more or less like Fichte, we bring, carry with us the solution of the
  riddle of the world -  another way of being-in-the-world seems impossible)

  So, with Jud, we can say that we are fooled by language. But asked how sthing
  non-existent like language is able to do that, he retreats into psychology,
  presupposing language as an instrument used by humans, so he cannot get into
  view language itself. That means, that we can? That is at least suggested, when
  we say to an other: you're not capable of.... And the addressed always takes it
  thus, so that we just continue to convince. But meanwhile we('re) fooled 
  ourselves. We too cannot get language into view, but this is not our fault,
  it's due to language itself. (Not to see THIS, would be our fault). So, in order
  to speak of language, we first have to make an experience with it. This is the
  starting point of "The essence of language" in: "Underway to language".
  It's 3rd page:

  "When ever and how ever we speak a language, language itself in doing so just
  never does come up [die Sprache selber kommt dabei gerade nicht zum Wort].
  All kinds of things, in speaking, are brought up [kommen zur Sprache], first of all
  that what we talk over [besprechen]: the facts of a case, an incident, a question,
  a concern. Only thereby, that in everyday talk [sprechen] language itself does 
  NOT bring itself up, rather holds back [an sich haelt], are we capable of speaking
  a language just so, to deal in speaking with sthing and treat of sthing."

  We must not try to overcome, but we must try not to evade the NOT, which is always
  already done, maybe already in Plato, as i said. Herakleitos, who, according to H,
  still was without enmity towards the strange, is said to have left Ephese and its
  goddess towards the end of his life and to have withdrawn in the woods.

  Apart from this way, i see no way to speak of a god, and there exists an adress of
  H to theologists, those who always already do speak of god, wherein this speaking
  is really completely destructed, leaving no space to escape (to the good reader) 
  but to deal with the NOT.   [back to: "Being has become nothing"] 

  regards

  rene

    

  Yesterday night on my bike i surprised a hedgehog, the other animal of I&D, funny..


  Allen, Juenger's "Die Schere" is a very important book. More than by the Greek gods,
  he -here again- seems intrigued by Moses: at the Sinai and at the battle with the
  Amalekites. 
  
  (Juenger, btw, said after the war: one can say a lot of the Jews, but not that they
  are ungrateful ; therewith pointing to the help he himself offered to Jews in Paris.
  And to his brothers, who at the same time kept Jews hidden in Berlin.) 
     









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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005