Heidegger

Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au namens Malcolm Riddoch
Verzonden: zo 28-5-2006 13:27
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Heideggerian Denken

I’ve been slowly checking out a few of the Heidegger blogs online and
came across Kevin Winters Heideggerian Denken.

For the fluent Deutsch speakers on list how would you interpret the
following omitted sentence from Stambaugh’s translation of “The
Principle of Identity”?

Man hat sich an diesem Wortgebrauch gesto?en. Aber wir sagen statt
«stellen» auch «setzen» und finden nichts dabei, da? wir das Wort
Ge-setz gebrauchen. Warum also nicht auch Ge-Stell, wenn der Blick in
den Sachverhalt dies verlangt?

Hi Malcolm,

- One has protested against this use of words. But we say instead of
>stellen< (pose) also >setzen< (set) and see no problem in using the
word Ge-setz (law). Then why not also Ge-Stell, when this is required
by a look into what is at stake?

implicit message: the objectors contradict themselves. Protest presupposes
betterknowing. But they cannot even see the parallel Gesetz-Gestell.
It will be clear (but to who?) that if this sort of intelligence, which is
at work everywhere, offers its ‘knowledge’, *all* words have already become
lies . So, when we are trying to deal seriously with the hidden (-verhalt)
mechanism of technology, it can be noted, that a lot of noise is made,
in order to not take it seriously. Slander is just the outcome, and nothing
to be troubled by.

greetings

rene

Posted on Monday, May 29th, 2006 at 12:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback