Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:44:04 -0500 Subject: Re: OTB John LeTourneux wrote: > I think I'll just ask if anyone has any interest in, insight into, the > distinction that Lyotard draws between his own approach to Kant and the > "ontologizing" approach of Nancy/Heidegger in "lessons on the analytic of the sublime," lyotard does refer to his differences with heidegger's reading of kant: "Without going into the intrinsic difficulties of this deduction, it would be wrong to look for the aesthetic "subject" in a synthesis similar to that of the _Ich denke_, the sole purpose of which is to guarantee of objectivity of judgements. I would venture further. A reading, even one like Heidegger's, endeavouring, not without reason, to demonstrate that in the end the authentic principle of the synthesis is not the "I think" but time -- such a reading is valid (if it is valid) only for knowledge and can refer only to determinant theorectical judgements." (p. 21) lyotard goes on to say that a heterogeneity of times would be required for "aesthetic time." one might also point out that even heidegger later admitted the problems with his reading of kant. it's interesting reading, in terms of studying heidegger, but even by the second edition of "kant and problem of metaphysics" he states, "Readers have taken constant offense at the violence of my interpretations. Their allegation of violence can indeed be supported by this text. ...The instances in which I have gone astray and the shortcomings of the present endeavour have become so clear to me on the path of thinking" etc. (p. xx) and again in the fourth edition, "... led me to interpret the _Critique of Pure Reason_ from within the horizon of the manner of questioning set forth in _being and time_. In truth, however, Kant's question is foreign to it ...." (p. xviii) and so on ... for the development of lyotard's thinking on kant, you might have a look at bennington's "Lyotard: Writing the Event." brent ...
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005