From: Sean Saraq <sean_saraq-AT-environics.ca>
Subject: RE: RE: Heidegger cannot be taken seriously
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:21:47 -0400 


Henry, your point is well taken. If Deleuze has a fault - even he had a
couple, but then so did Nietzsche! - it is hastiness with the
philosophers he doesn't like, Heidegger among them. I think that Deleuze
takes Nietzsche's idea of the philosopher as the "physician of
civilization" very much in earnest, and to this end is a bit quick in
dismissing certain thinkers as reactive or anthropocentric (which would
be but one manifestation of reaction). Hegelians would say he's even
more unfair with Hegel (but I'm not a Hegelian - not intentionally,
anyway), so I won't waste my breath defending him. I'm sure there are a
surfeit of Hegelians up to the task.

Sean Saraq
Toronto

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	henry sholar [SMTP:hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, August 03, 1998 3:50 PM
> To:	nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject:	Re: RE: Heidegger cannot be taken seriously
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:48:56 -0400  Sean Saraq 
> <sean_saraq-AT-environics.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > That having been said, it is my impression that Laruelle took
> Heidegger
> > seriously, but that Deleuze didn't take Heidegger seriously at all.
> The
> > little he had to say about Heidegger seemed more in response to the
> fact
> > that Heidegger was "the flavor of the hour", rather than any
> interest in
> > Heidegger per se.
> > 
> > I agree that Heidegger's writings on Nietzsche say a lot more about
> > Heidegger than they do about Nietzsche. My personal impression -
> many
> > will disagree! - is that Deleuze is much more in the Nietzschean
> spirit
> > than is Heidegger.
> 
> 
> in a footnote to deleuze's _nietzsche & philosophy_:
> 
> Heidegger gives an interpretation of Nietzschean philosophy closer to 
> his own thought than to Nietzsche's.  Heidegger sees, in the doctrine 
> of the eternal return and the overman, the determination of "the 
> relation of Being to being of man as relation of this being to Being."
> 
> (cf, What is called thinking?)  This interpretation neglects all that 
> Nietzsche  fought against.  Nietzsche is opposed to every conception
> of 
> affirmation which would find its foundation in Being, and its 
> determination in the being of man. (Nietz & Philos p220, n.31, 
> Tomlinson transl.)
> 
> I'd say Deleuze speaks too hastily here.  Opposing the Being of the 
> history of metaphysics keeps one within its sway.
> 
> ----------------------
> henry sholar
> hwsholar-AT-uncg.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


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