From: "James Kennedy" <jameske3001-AT-clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche is Bunk
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 16:13:15 +0100



----- Original Message -----
From: Catweasle <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Nietzsche is Bunk


> 'To The Tumbrels with Being!'
>
> Predicationary indicative utilization of the verb "to be" and the
connected
> verbal noun 'Being,' does not reflect the factual changing circumstances
in
> the cosmos as we encounter them in our experience of living. The
deliberate
> elimination of the 'being' word automatically triggers a philosophical
> search for meaning, yet at the same time disposes of many of the
linguistic
> problems associated with an understanding of Nietzsche's ideas.
> Ironically, the very word chosen by the philosopher as one of his
petards,
> emerges
> as one of the greatest stumbling block to an explication of his
methodology
> and
> intention, and hoists him away from the comprehension of  his scholars.
> Outwardly to an entire extent the 'real world' changes so slowly that we
may
> not observe the changes directly, as in the case of a gravestone, which
has
> a
> certain outward aspect of solidity and permanence.  On other occasions
> transformations occur so quickly that we can watch the changes in action
as
> in the case of the clouds in the sky or the water as it passes under a
> bridge.
> Each individual, as well as every 'thing,' experiences such alterations.
The
> human face changes with every second as the forces of gravity take their
> toll, (I'm happy about this - for we have a Beauty Therapy business,) the
> neuronal configuration beneath the pate bestirs in constant change -
> synapsal expirations and reconnections continue apace - the mind of five
> minutes ago is not the mind of the moment. The will o' the wisp 'Being' of
> the present instant is the one that is decisive - not the 'Being' of a few
> frames gone by.   The English verb "to be" conducts with it antiquated
> delusional affiliations and entailments of enduringness and stable
actuality
> that we do not find in the real world.
> Heidegger's version of  'Being' proves not the static verbal content word
we
> imagine but
> a multiplicity of unprintable snapshots of consecutive 'Beings' exposed
and
> rearranged by the gyrating flickering magic lantern of changing reality.
> What is life? What is existence? Is it cold? What is my name? Who are you?
> Questions like that, because of problems relating to the meaning and
changes
> of meaning in structure lead to confusion. They tend to lead to discourse
in
> which the likelihood of useful information generation or exchange declines
> precipitously. It would be more fruitful and generative of data to ask:
> 'what qualifies life uniquely? Has the temperature dropped?  By what name
> are you called?'
> Alas, it presents an almost an impossible task to adhere to the
elimination
> of that little word 'is' although I have managed it this essay, (except
> where I have used it deliberately for exemplar purposes,) but if the
effort
> proves successful, a vigorous clarity emerges in the textual content. The
> complete banishment of the verb to be presents a mammoth task as any trial
> will soon show - the dreaded 'be' seems too steadfastly embedded in the
deep
> generative linguistic structures of the brain.  Personally I think that an
> attempt to circumlocute and find alternatives to the 'being' word would
> prove fruitful and provide aid to students and supporters of
Nietzschianism
> for a deeper more enriched understanding of his meanings and conclusions
> about the nature of time and man's place in it.
>
> Catweasel.

Heidegger's conclusion from Sein und Zeit was that Being was time. This
strikes me as essentially Nietzschean in that Nietzsche's philosophy was one
of becoming and overcoming. Heidegger tried to represent Nietzsche as the
last of the classical philosophers - a claim that I think underestimated
Nietzsche's influence on his own philosophy. Heidegger's real input to
philosophy was on the nature of identity. Strictly speaking, there is no
being as such but it is extremely impractical to continually rename things
because some things do not change that much. Primordially, if one merely
recognizes that time and change go hand in hand then the language of
identity suffices within parameters.

Heidegger emphasises autheniticity in Sein und Zeit as a critical
development in Dasein as it modifies Dasein from the fallen state of Dasman.
However, within authenticity there is still identity - it just isn't the
fallen state of Dasman anymore. One can see parallels between Nietzsche's
extraordinary individuals versus the herd instinct and Heidegger's Authentic
versus Inauthentic Dasein.



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