Heidegger

A brief refrain:

I wonder whether talk of Heidegger’s neologisms is not an obvious
diversion
from underscoring his thinking proper, whether it is a spectacular straw
man. It seems to me now here that Heidegger’s neologisms and hyphenated
(old) logisms are partly erected to avoid richly metaphorical language
endemic of traditional philosophies and thus the metaphysics he is
straining
against and with, but without resorting to the vacuous
logico-positivisms
that terminate in symbolic logic (as if it were philosophy).

John: This would require a symbolic intuition, then it’s attendants,
otherwise it would remain as vapid as you say.

Tymp: Good to see your name pop up. Whatever the case may be I can’t see
understanding anything without the practical activity whereby the will is
freed up from its bondage to the influence of envy, anger, lust and such
eventhough some of these perhaps have their positive application when for
instance anger is understood as contempt or lust as crazy love. Hegel in the
encyclopedia sees this enslavement of the will much like Spinoza as a road
block to moving on towards the telos of happiness. This is the practice that
he discusses in the part of the encycloedia called anthropology where he
discusses mental illness and such phenomena as animal magnetism,
clairvoyance, daydreaming, etc. Practice always comes before more
theoretical seeing otherwise you end up with confused ideas because of the
inability to guard the heart-mind well enough to hear the suggestive
intelligibles of the Active Intellect, of the concept or more embracing
idea. Perhaps moving through practice to theoretical seeing involves the
universal form the emerges with intellectual intuition and isn’t this a
symbolic intuition that is not so influenced by what causes confused ideas?

Tympan

Posted on Wednesday, January 24th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback