Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-archos.com]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: woensdag 10 oktober 2007 20:56
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: The Oddness of the OD

rene:
>> Jud, OD is indeed very odd. To be in-between beings and being is odd, but
>> NOT being in between even much more so. The belief that one still has to do
>> with beings or things or hours, while ‘being’ and ‘thing’ and ‘time’ are
>> considered to be merely fictions, is so irrational

mP:
> sorry to but in, but: merely ‘considered’ to be “fictions”? By whom? And
> does continuing to abide with/by beings, things, hours, necessarily involve
> belief (in their existence)? This is surely the game of the LMatiste (one of
> firm unshakeable belief-fired doctrine {or is it merely axiomatic this
> belief in stuff [material objects, so-called]?}) and not that of others for
> whom belief (and non-belief) is neither here nor there… (nor any where
> else)

rene:
> Insight into the fictional character of metaphysical notions (in our era)
> is therefore indispensable, and to just
> claim overhistorical validity is nothing but one-eyed hybris in the face
> of the massacres being performed with the
> help of these same once venerable notions. I’d say, Jud is one step ahead
> here, insofar the life form, handling the
> notions, is posed into the foreground. This life form being Jud himself,
> then reveals the consequences of blind
> opposition to metaphysics, the dependence on which is tightened with every
> objection. And from here to the reasons
> for his slander, is a simple passage. To get stuck in an impossible
> situation, is always the result of the incapacity
> to deal with one’s widerwille. Opposing it, by recurrence to a merely
> historical metaphysics, just tightens into an
> even more hidden aversion. Just look where this has brought someone like
> Anthony. So that in the end it does not
> make any difference whether one knows the classics or not.

Rene, you seem to me to be saying that the likes of Judist opposition to
metaphysics is useful for thinkers (in this upside-down inside-out era)
because of and in spite of his clearly blind ignorant arrogance towards and
of that very metaphysics;

The permanent ferociousness of the opposition, not the content.
Recent Heidegger quote: The protest against philosophy contains more philosophy than
the ongoing play with ready-to-hand notions, which is merely despicable..

this barbarism then exposes not only the barbarism
(of such idiocy) but also the false nature of those venerated notions of
metaphysics itself?

Heidegger: Metaphysics is essentially nihilism. As in the case of theology,
the falsity of metaphysics/nihilism is all man-made.
The nihil, Nothing *itself* is the veil of Being, the ‘essential’ Nothing.
The lousy nothing (nichtige Nichts) is the result of man’s not being
equal to it. But this not being able to cope is the mark of his finitude,
and insofar ‘essential’. Hölderlin’s simple word of the necessity for the test
to go through the knee, gains the importance which it has, only within the
sphere which is addressed here.
So there ARE no: Being, Truth, Nothing etc. In our finite sphere they are
essentially ambiguous, and also this sounds negative only to the one-sided.
It is probably up to us, to decide, and never to *claim* one side. Rather,
Heidegger proposes that the ambiguity/twofoldnes of od is to be led back
to an original unity. There is no thoroughfare though when “the mortal paths are
despised” (Hölderlin). Without these, man is merely das Riesending, the fantastic
autocratic thing as which he presents himself. Metaphysics - and that means:
what is left of it - keeps man within the delusion that he is immortal, that he
disposes of the truth of beings.

Thus a double whammy of barbaric falsity (both
metaphysics and its blind ignorant opposition posing itself as philosophy
{which at least journalism and stagnant mass opinion, etc, do not bother to
glamorise themselves with}). Useful because both lots of falsity
(metaphysics and its brutalised opposition {so-called; Jud’s ‘opposition’
seems to me to be totally and obliviously caught up in the most obvious
metaphysics}) are revealed, unconcealed? If so, and if truth is aletheia and
aletheia is unconcealedness, then it seems you value truth too…?
Opposition is futile yet opposition to opposition is not so…? You confuse
me almost as much as Heidegger, and for that I thank you, but there’s a but
I cannot yet articulate never mind validate.

It can’t be done, nobody can. Therefore one needs help. But are we able and willing
to ask for and to receive help? Absolute subjectivism - now a global phenomenon - ,
with all its metaphysical and theological vocabulary, can’t.

‘gards

michaelP

> egards
> rene

Posted on Thursday, October 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback