Heidegger Email List

February 3rd, 2008, search related
Related posts :: just plain philosophy, not religion (GA55 Heraklit) :: just plain philosophy, not religion (GA55 Heraklit) :: just plain philosophy, not religion (GA55 Heraklit) :: just plain philosophy, not religion (GA55 Heraklit)

that_pete at yahoo.com writes:
> On arche:
>
> “Philosophy inquires into the arche. We translate that word as “principle..”
> And if we neglect to think and question rigorously and persistently, we
> think we know what ’Äúprinciple” means here. Arche and archein mean ’Äúto
> begin.’Äù At the same time, they mean to stand at the beginning of all;
> hence, to rule. Yet this reference to the designated arche will make sense
> only if we simultaneously determine that of which and for which we are
> seeking the arche. We are seeking it, not for some isolated event, not for
> unusual and recondite facts and relationships, but purely and simply for
> being. Whenever we say the word das Seiende, we are referring to everything
> that is. But when we inquire into the arche of being, all being’Äî-as a
> whole and in entirety-’Äîis placed in question. With the question concernig
> the arche, something about being as a whole has already been said. Being
> as a whole has now become visible for the first time as being and as a whole.”

> The Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position, page 187

BernX:
> Pete, Limiting arche as “to begin” ignores it as a concept of the original,
> as in *ur* which perdures without limit to beginning or end, the past or
> the future but to experience in the immediate present. Whether Being as a
> whole becomes visible for the first time as being and as a whole is to
> reveal what is arche or original.

Yes, but for Heidegger (as I understand it), arche, the beginning, if a true
beginning, does persist throughout and even into the future: destinal,
ruling/disposing from the start and throughout. Derrida (radically following
Heidegger throughout) would have us think this in terms of a postal system
(be-ing as arche is sent ahead). In that sense, Heidegger’s infamous
step-back is also stepping forward into a not-yet (to, as it were, catch the
post)…

Arche as origin (rather than a ruling firstness) too easily points to
something generative but left behind at the start.

regards

michaelP

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


banner ad