From: "Lois Shawver" <rathbone-AT-california.com>
Subject: RE: rorty and heidegger
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:51:15 -0700


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Steve, it would be interesting to know if Fuller is talking about early
Heidegger or late Heidegger.  And also, whether he is talking about early or
late Wittgenstein.  Both authors have two dramatically different periods.  I
prefer the late periods of both authors, which are, in my opinion, quite
compatible.

I also want to apologize for not getting back to you with our prior
conversation.  What I thought would be a short period in which I needed to
get things done, has stretched out further and further.  My apology for
leaving that hanging.

..Lois Shawver
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of steve.devos
  Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:42 AM
  To: lyoptard list
  Subject: rorty and heidegger


  I have been reading and enjoying Fuller's work on kuhn and popper over the
past few days into weeks. In the midst of this text some interesting moments
on Rorty; the central accusation (which is undoubtedly true) being that "...
the dominant figures of the two main European traditions Wittgenstin and
Heidegger have promoted a conservative even conformist vision of social
practice..."  The argument which I will not repeat here is that  Rorty
maintains that Heidegger is the most original philosopher of the 20th C. In
the process of doing so he creates the maximum distence possible between
what "Rorty calls Heidegger's ideas and the origins and the consequences of
the ideas - including the invocation of a far-fetched futuristic
physiology...."

  Can anyone confirm that this understanding is an accurate representation
of  Rorty's understanding - (my knowledge of Rorty's Heidegger is not as
detailed as it would be if I was an american.)

  thanks
  steve

  http://krokodile.co.uk

HTML VERSION:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of steve.devos
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:42 AM
To: lyoptard list
Subject: rorty and heidegger

I have been reading and enjoying Fuller's work on kuhn and popper over the past few days into weeks. In the midst of this text some interesting moments on Rorty; the central accusation (which is undoubtedly true) being that "... the dominant figures of the two main European traditions Wittgenstin and Heidegger have promoted a conservative even conformist vision of social practice..."  The argument which I will not repeat here is that  Rorty maintains that Heidegger is the most original philosopher of the 20th C. In the process of doing so he creates the maximum distence possible between what "Rorty calls Heidegger's ideas and the origins and the consequences of the ideas - including the invocation of a far-fetched futuristic physiology...."  

Can anyone confirm that this understanding is an accurate representation of  Rorty's understanding - (my knowledge of Rorty's Heidegger is not as detailed as it would be if I was an american.)

thanks
steve

http://krokodile.co.uk