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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005