File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_2000/nietzsche.0003, message 114


Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:04:14 +0100
From: "W.F. Wong" <wf1-AT-myokay.net>
Subject: Re: Tips on how to be an overman


Paul Bryant wrote: "It's amazing that we have not gone one
step further in the question of being since
Heidegger...  That a project which he himself admitted
was incomplete has not in any way been developed or
challenged."

I think, the contemporary philosophers have gone into this question, but
it is not a question of being but a question of being"s".

Wong

Paul Bryant wrote:

> Hi Scott--
>
> > Heidegger is a suspended problem for me. What does
> > he offer that N
> > doesn't? I've read the meta essay, tech essay, and
> > I'm currently on BT.
> > His style is post-Kantian technical. Unnecessarily
> > boring? He does a
> > great job of revealing scientific reductionism, but
> > leaves one hanging
> > as to where to go next, besides the Being question.
>
> In my opinion, this is precisely Heidegger's strength.
>  It's clear that I will be taken to task for this
> comment, but, if something is to be taken to task in
> Nietzsche it is that he tells us where to go next.
> Telling us where to go next is precisely what a
> thinker should never do.  It's at precisely that point
> that one crosses the line between philosophy and
> religion.  For to tell one where to go next is
> equivalent to setting up an eschatology...  And is
> this not precisely what we see happening with
> Nietzsche?  One sees perpetually a discussion of the
> coming of the ubermensch, as if it were a second
> coming of Christ.  Moreover, a set of saints is
> created around the names of great men in history like
> Caesar, Napolean, etc..  While this certainly wasn't
> Nietzsche's intention, everything comes to nonetheless
> be seen in a quasi-religious light.
>
> Our greatest strength and power consists in the
> ability to create our own questions and problems.
> Problems, questions, do not represent negative moments
> to be passed over later, but are that which bestow
> sense and meaning to our experience.  By leaving the
> question of where to go next open, Heidegger, in part,
> insures the continuance of this power.  However, new
> dangers emerge here...  There's always the
> possibility-- a possibility that has in fact been
> realized --that a new scholasticism will develop...
> That more homage will be paid to the word rather than
> the spirit.  It's amazing that we have not gone one
> step further in the question of being since
> Heidegger...  That a project which he himself admitted
> was incomplete has not in any way been developed or
> challenged.
>
> > Inquiry requires an
> > intention. Being as inquiry is religious escapisim?
>
> There is certainly a mysticism that has developed
> around the name of Heidegger...  But it's always
> necessary to distinguish between real problems and the
> manner in which they are appropriated by doxa.  One
> must look at the manner in which Heidegger has been
> appropriated and wonder/ask why these appropriations
> have failed to pass through the
> phenomenological/hermeneutic critique.
>
> > Open minds are
> > great for new possibilities but "vision" was N's
> > forte - a revaluation,
> > not a devaluation. Mankind is something that must be
> > formed.
>
> I would prefer to say that man is something to be
> overcome.
>
> H's
> > philosophy leads to a depersonalization in need of a
> > new direction?
>
> A little depersonalization does us some good.  Nothing
> stinks more than ressentiment manifested in the form
> of ressenitiment.  To aspire to that which is in us
> more than ourselves, to that will to power that can
> never be called "I" but which is nonetheless my
> "ownmost" being would be the ideal.
>
> Is
> > this why H fell for the Nazi's? N warned him. Is H a
> > hyper-relativist?
>
> No, he's not a hyper-relativist.  How could any
> transcendental philosopher be such?
>
> > How do you fit your N and H views together? If you
> > objectify objectivity
> > - phenomenology - don't you have something close to
> > H?
>
> Good question.  Thankfully I'm neither a Heideggerian
> nor a Nietzschean.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Paul
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
>         --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005