Heidegger

Pete wrote partly in response to tymp’s suggestion that only rene was really
into heidegger:

> Rene may be the only groupie here, but I’m here because I’m interested
> in what Heidegger had to say, and how others interpret what he said.
>
> Weren’t you volunteering to manage a Heidegger FAQ earlier?

Pete, for me rene’s no groupie, just takes heidegger extremely seriously, as
I do in my own way without considering myself a ‘heideggerian’ (and
certainly not in the sense of jud’s swearword); one or two are here
(inevitably, the nature of the online) to heckle and throw their own shit in
the fan to enjoy what sticks, but most are here because they are from
interested to committed in what heidegger has contributed to philosophy and
thinking (in the serious sense), aren’t they? [genuine question, although,
in my practical dealings here, I anyway take the answer to be 100% yes,
otherwise I couldn’t operate properly and thus would/could never
participate].

If (briefly) heidegger has shown us that serious thinking concerns the
forgotten/hidden difference between be-ing and beings then almost any
serious speech (as occurs on this list) must bear witness to this crypt of
be-ing, if only we care to think that difference in response (at least some
times). And it seems to me that rene amongst others definitely attempts this
verwindung on occasion.

Malcom, the mission statement is fine by me.

regards to all

michael

Posted on Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback