Heidegger

rene on physis and techne:

> I referred to the beginning of Physics II, to where the distinction
> physis - techne, as two different and opposed principles (archai/aitiai)
> of reality, is brought. If one reads carefully what seems to be
self-evident,
> it appears that physis is not simply the beginning of a part of reality,
> the things made vs the things grown, but also enables products (poioumena)
> to be what and how they are. (to be hypokeimenon: really there)
> Without physis, the eidos of a table, conceived of by the carpenter, must
> remain conceptual, or cannot even be conceived at all. It is such that
Aristotle
> ‘is’ still: without physis, techne becomes absolute design, or acts
likewise
> under the illusion of absolute design, as we can witness in the virtual
domain,
> which claims to be nature-independent. But where no engagement is, there
can be
> no feeding and growing, and so only decay. That also goes for philosophy
following
> the same illusion. This is getting ever more clear now, to ever fewer who
understand.

Rene (welcome back), is it possible to consider physis and techne not as
different realms or domains of beings but rather different ways at looking
at/divining/reading all/any beings? I mean, for Marx, physis was subsumed by
techne (natural history as just history and history as just societal as
sociology)… I mean, there is (not) only be-ing…

regards

michaelP

Posted on Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback