Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: vrijdag 9 juni 2006 17:37
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: Hegel’s Aristotle

rene wrote:

> Later, this is precisely turned upside down. Shortly: in the beginning
> of the piece on Anaximander, it appears that pre-Socratic really
> means pre-Aristotelean. The reason being that between us and Aristotle,
> and a fortiori to the earlier, is Hegel. Without realising that, we
> cannot understand the decisive narrowment of physis in Aristotle, with
> respect to the earlier physiologoi.

rene, could it be said that th very eruption (wrenching it from the
-mergency) of aristotlean physis (the decisive narrowment) from its arche in
the presox was itself an e-mergency on a par with physis itself? Or, why do
we make a difference with the human kind: artfully, as in techne? I know
that there is at least an element of sophistry in my questioning, but I ask
anyway.

regards

michaelP

We have touched this many times while reading Physics A, 1-3, which is now
finished. In August we’ll start Physics B.
Aristotle more or less explains what has happened since Parmenides: the
impossibility of legein, and that means of man as logon exon. But there is
never a way back in philosophy, it cannot be made undone! What he does is
great, and it is done greatly, but the original unity retreats and is to
be retained on different tracks: to on and to en pollachos. Several oppositions
are introduced, and they result in different fields: physika, ethica, logike.
All further tradition remains within these boundaries, although the determination
of truth varies. The breach in physis, and the Verschüttung/submersion of
aletheia soon following will determine the development of the great tradition
up to Nietzsche, and Heidegger has reworked everything, which is a miracle
in itself, because how does one notice a missing if one is in it?
Where physis diappears, techne takes its place. Now there is unconditional
technology. But that is NOT negative, althuogh the destruction is formidable.
Esp. its unconditional character points to the inevitable. Over against the
inevitable i am free to acknowledge it or to proclaim myself free. That'’
also why “freedom”. It is still the revolt, raging more than ever.

cheers
rene

Posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback