Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:18:05 -0600 From: Dan Dzenkowski <djdzenko-AT-students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: Death of God and aftermath At 06:14 PM 11/5/98 -0500, Lambda C wrote: I don't have the time right now to reply to your letter in its entirety, nor do I think I will. There is still more to be thought out in my head on this subject. >PS - By the way, Nietzsche was unable to provide a scientific foundation >for his doctrine/theory. But that does not mean that one _cannot_ be >provided, even if no one has succeeded in actually doing so, not at >least as far as is publicly known. I think that there will never be a scientific foundation for his philosophy, if it is even a philosophy. Nietzsche was a great psychologist who came up with some incredible mental theories on gaining a superabundance of life, mainly reversing the trend towards decadence. How that could have a scientific foundation, (objective?) I am not sure. >PS - And also by the way, it is in the reversion from science to art >that Heidegger most definitely loses his thread - in parallel to Jarry >who reproached anarchy for reverting from art to science. And this >critique of an artistic paragon has not even commenced, even if Deleuze >at least posed the question - "Might one not be able to say that >Heidegger saw in the national-socialist machine a passage towards art?" >For, in this respect, we have little compunction in admitting that it is >not philosophy which will carry out this critique but, precisely as >Nietzsche envisaged it, science will, another science, a joyful one. >And in this regard it is not just D&G who were mistaken, but a whole >century of philosophy and science. I have only read a little Deleuze, having just discovered him a few months ago, can you suggest any books? Also I have read little Heidegger, so I am not going to understand many references to him. A pleasure as always. Dan --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005