Heidegger

Heidegger, having laid down Heraklitus’ logos as collecting lay,
(lesende Lege) asks:

“But is all this not an arbitrary interpreting (deuten) and an all too
estranging translating in face of the familiar comprehension, which
is supposed to understand the Logos as sense and reason?
Estranging it sounds at first and remains so maybe for a long time to come,
when the Logos means the lesende Lege. But how shall someone decide, that
that, which this translation suspects as essence of the Logos, remains
remotely in accordance to what Heraclitus has thought and named in the name
ho Logos?
“The only wayzu a decision is to take into consideration, what Heraklitus
himself says in the adduced saying. The saying begins.: ouk emou… It begins
by an hard repulsing “Not…”. It bears on the speaking, saying Heraclitus
himself. It affects the hearing of the mortals.” (…)

more or less the same with Heidegger’s “my ownmost question”.

all desire for certitude in basic matters, is just a flight.
only he has to say sthing, who carries with him the width, by and in which a
word may sound and speak, ‘factically’. Precisely this is denied by the certitude
searchers, and precisely because of that fugitive mood. So that it is once more
clear where the problem really is, and why it is transported into Heraclitus,
Nietzsche, Heidegger, and, significantly, to all those reaching out for more
than mere personal and subjective speak.
If this has been explained sufficiently, those going on with it, obsessively,
will have become the mere product of malice. That’s how the malicious/das Bösartige
works. Its relation to evil is explained in an internation camp of the second ww,
that we are dealing, or better that it deals with us, with an ontological, not a
moral evil, the stress on morality being the definitive hybris itself.
(GA77 Feldweggespräche)

rene

rene

Posted on Monday, June 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: logos»