Subject: RE: Questioning the Question
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:55:52 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens Malcolm
Riddoch
Verzonden: zaterdag 19 juni 2004 9:26
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Questioning the Question



On Saturday, June 19, 2004, at 02:06  AM, allen scult wrote:

> What gives Heidegger the "right" to speak of  Dasein as he does-as if 
> it's any more than a projection?  More importantly, why do I trust 
> him, give him the right, to "speak for me" at least most of the time. 
> . . and Jud doesn't?

As far as I'm concerned all philosophy is a story no different from 
other creation myths like Genesis or quantum theory. I approach 
Heidegger's work from the scientific or phenomenological perspective of 
the descriptive analysis of a phenomenon rather than as the received 
wisdom of a superior authority. Phenomenology is the 'how' or 
methodology of pre-empirical analysis rather than scriptural dogma.

Heidegger reports on Dasein because he is the only one capable of doing 
so for himself as the phenomenon of Dasein is in each case 'one's own', 
that's the meaning of Eigentlichkeit and Ereignis, and the emphasis on 
'formal indication'. So you can read him as you wish, but the analysis 
is always in each case your own whether you interpret his texts as mere 
description or as some sort of Heideggerean dogma.

In a sense the analytic of Dasein is necessarily 'subjective' because 
Dasein as one's own existence in this world is not an empirical or 
'objective' phenomenon. This methodological approach to the problem is 
layed out in both Husserl's early works from the Prolegomena of the 
Logical Investigations onwards and in Heidegger's Being and Time. They 
both explicitly state that you can't take them at their word but must 
do the analysis for yourself and see where it takes you. Again, it's 
the way of thinking, pathmarks, indications of a prior exploration that 
you can follow or not, the choice is yours. It's called interpretation 
and for me the question of trust does not come into it, rather there is 
a structural mistrust built into the phenomenological enterprise as no 
one else can "speak for me" but myself.

Cheers,

Malcolm


   Malcolm, Allen,

   Of course, who else? But what if someone says: language, also your speaking 
   for yourself, means lastly not that a subject speaks, but that words speak, sound,
   through you (per-sona). Lastly it is not Nietzsche who says: there is only will, 
   power. Would that be so, then he and his theory of wtp would, like everything else,
   belong to our (historical)reality. A reality that would be real without wtp.
   But it's the other way around: reality appears so, as wtp 'says it must'. 
   And THAT is precisely now what can and should be seen. Every notion used now, god, 
   fatherland justice, democracy, appear to be essential lies. And not to be trusted. 
   Including this notion of 'oneself'. ?  One-self - just the place where the lies 
   find a place to be? And nothing else?

   rene

   







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


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