Heidegger

In a message dated 7/16/2008 8:54:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tgeorgescu at home.nl writes:

> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] Namens Les Smith
> Verzonden: woensdag 16 juli 2008 10:30
> Aan: heidegger at an-archos.com
> Onderwerp: Re: A Note on Authenticity
>
> Gentlemen: How would Heidegger respond?

Osho understood authenticity as being true to one’s own emotions (kind of
reified as “inner voice”). Heidegger calls emotions “moods”.
Heidegger thus fails to notice that feeling is the modulation of emotion and
hence the active antidote to “moods.”

Osho’s concept
of authenticity is incomplete: it does not take into account the intellect
and the moral conscience. It does not take into account that in real world
(real society), one cannot be whatever he/she wants.
That is because there is no distinction drawn between the “real world” and
the personal individual.
Hence, “moral conscience” is thus reduced to a super-ego predicated in social
collectivity.

E.g. a painter has to
sell his/her paintings and make a living out of that, otherwise the chance
of being the second Van Gogh is 0,00001% and he/she would most likely be an
artistic failure.
Van Gogh was certainly such a finacial failure
but hardly an artistic failure. Again, no distinction is drawn here between
the collective rule book of
conscience and the indivudal conscience predicated as the will to artistic
authenticity.

So, Osho’s consideration fail to consider: moral conscience, intellect and
thrownness. Osho’s authenticity is like being true to 25% of your Self, or
less.
In the measure of your quantitative analog 10% would be enough

A top engineer has intellectual satisfactions which non-engineers are unable
to get. An engineer’s accomplishments are real, they can be touched, they
are effective for the purpose they were designed for. Oppenheimer was in a
position similar to such engineers. Only, what got him scared was the fact
that his device was terribly good at doing what it was intended to do. He
could not have peace with being a mass murderer, since he had a moral
conscience.

No! It was because he was a hypocrit

Now, it would have been easier for him if he did not have a moral
conscience, but he did have one. So being true to his own Self made him say
that he has blood on his hands. From the perspective of a warrior, killing
one’s enemy is a great satisfaction. Only Oppenheimer was not born to be a
warrior. That’s why he had to lose the dispute with Edward Teller, about
producing the hydrogen bombs. At least in respect to Oppenheimer, Teller
behaved like a true warrior.

Then “true warriors” are somehow deficient when in comes to conscience? What
kind of a little boy’s view do you have of what you generalize as a true
warrior? Would this mean that Gen’l Eisenhower had no moral conscience?

The M.A.D. rationale, that atom bombs are intended to preserve world peace
proved correct to a great extent. So, given the circumstances, authentic
people could produce such bombs. E.g., the reason why Einstein suggested
producing such bombs was the perspective that the Nazis were going to
produce them first. Such perspective, was realistic, from his own viewpoint.
So, he behaved authentically in writing that letter, since he desired to
have in that war at least an equilibrium of powers, if not victory.

The motive was for neither equilibrium of powers or victory but for survival.
The latter had priority and the former became the rule after survival was
achieved during the cold war wth the USSR.

Therefore, authenticity is more complicated (and more painful) than Osho
implies.
And quite incomplete by how you rationalize as much.

Greetings,

Tudor

Cheers;
Bernard

Posted on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback