Heidegger

—– Original Message —–
From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”
To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: Broken Tools

………………………………………..

besides rene , why arent your posts subject to the same nihlism, text is
nothing if not organnization, the phenomenological ‘pureland’ that you
heideggerrians subscribe as a aprior is bollocks! It could be minutley taken
apart by a talented post-structuralist thinker (at the risk of catching JUDS
disease). pk

You are right, that i’m no exception. But once one knows that, and
insofar
one knows, one is warned, and that should make the difference. Otherwise
philosophy would be impossible and everydayness absolute. But we are
already
talking of it, so it must have been shown to us already too.
It looks a lot like Socrates being the wisest, because only he knows that
he knows nothing. The difference though is, that to all metaphysics
clarity
is and remains the ideal, and unclarity a way to clarity. (Cusanus: de
docta
ignorantia. Kant: selfrestriction by reason) But this is not so in
Heidegger
(also not in Nietzsche), and in our era, where unclarity, ambiguousness
are
to be seen as essential, and not merely a provisional phase, if one wants
to
‘know’ anything. Now too much light is the danger, because outshining
thought
by self-evidence.
Of course, this has not been unknown in fields besides philosophy. Lately
i found a saying by the French moraliste Vauvenargues: Clarity is the bad
conscience of the philosophers. But now that the harmony of metaphysics
and
other approaches is over with, now that everyone is *directly* hit by
what-is,
the question of darkness-light (occlusion-appearing, Abwesen-Anwesen) is
to be
brought down to the “hidden dephts of Dasein”. (GA29/30). Spreading light
here
would rob one precisely of the hidden depth, and that means of Dasein
itself.
So, what is to be achieved is finding ways to reach the hidden, and it is
THEREFORE
that Heraclitus a.o. are referred to, because one needs another sort of
logos and
legein than the absolute logic which is the result of thinking since.

but i agree that the sickness consisting in the claim to be right is
looming
always and everywhere, so that when one has become tired of darkness, the
urge
to be right claims its rights again. It’s just that i am no longer
worried by it,
when others pose that claim to me. These are just denying what goes for
everyone,
because that would hit them as well.

eh, see?

regards
rene

rene,
yours/heid’s “Hidden” is structurally identical with Allen’s YHWH, as
well as Augustine’s, Luther’s, Kierkegaard’s, …, the abyss, the mysterium
tremendum; and this is understood and accepted precisely as you represent it
beyond all metafisics; but i still don’t see why such a state of affairs
logically necessitates the nihilation of metafisics.
That man has metafisical needs, e.g., morality/meaning/light, beyond the
spurious ‘good and evil’ of will to power, seems phenomenologically and
existentially incontravertible. And to say that positing meaning in
morality necessarily precludes atunement to the possibility of new meaning
in ‘the hidden’ seems extravagantly willful. The tradition has 3 millennia
of testimony to the contrary, …that indeed it is precisely the metafisical
urge that atunes to the mystery, the darkness, God. And the performative
contradiction Peter points out goes deeper than the provisional
embarrassment you would have it, …proof of the a priori metafisical
structure even in those denying metafisics. You seek meaning, not nothing.

bob

Posted on Friday, June 30th, 2006 at 3:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback