Heidegger

In a message dated 8/31/2006 12:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
phil at thalasson.com writes:
In article , GEVANS613 at aol.com writes
quoting Faye supposedly quoting Heidegger
>*identifying the hidden enemies within the nation - “in order to annihilate
>them totally:”

Philippe Arjakovsky points out that Faye is not quoting from an
unpublished lecture but from one that was published several years ago
and nothing remarkable was seen in it at the time. It only becomes so
when Faye quotes out of context.

Arjakovsky:

“There is the question of ‘the radical need to find the enemy’ and ‘to
initiate an attack with a view to their total annihilation’ [quoting
H]
… One sees that the passage cited on the enemy and combat is taken
in reality from a commentary on a fragment of Heraclitus, the
celebrated fragment DK53 which says that ‘polemos is the father of
everything that is’ and the thesis in general of the chapter is that
polemos, combat, is for the Greeks the essential home of all that
is, well beyond all human activity.”

Above taken from http://parolesdesjours.free.fr/scandale….
–
Philip Baker

[BXBovasso] In connection with the fragment where Herkleitos appear to
declare the necessity of polemo it should be reminded the his ground reference is in
the context of Empedokles’ Eros qua Strife and of Anximander’s separated out
opposites [apokrisis] from apieron )
as protohyle. The opposites separated out then are guilty of doing “injustice”
one to another (i.e., as the conflict of opposites)and will punished
accordingly. This theme runs accordingly with the premises of the physiologoi
(materialists!!!?) as citing a universal principle of the bipolar activity of however
qualified as a unit or quantum of opposites. In this same sense Apieron (as
the boundless) is more in fact a reference to the proto, protohylic state and by
which origin (arche) is “nothing,” and in fact the definition of Being an
sich. Being, therefore is qualified only as the abscence of the little material
“beings” that are “out there” (Dasein) for Heidegger but which have nothing to
do with Being insofar as they are materially substancial as objects of
perception or sensation (i.e., human sensibility) whereas Being an sich is beyond
representation although inferrable by what Kant calls the “intellectual
intuition” whose field of discourse is called noumanal qua noumena or transcendental
ideas: ergo, neither the *phenomenal* material objects of sensation,sensabilty
or the transcendental objects of intuition may be qualified as “in” or “having”
being. Accordingly Jud is hardly a professor of “Heidegger-hatred” but simply
guilty of tidying up some of Heidegger’s curious and abstruse epistemological
citations. More likely, Jud is a “hater” of Heideggerians in the same way as
myself as partisan to C.G. Jung has the worst to say about neo Jungian
psychologists: viz.,. http://hometown.aol.com/bernx/myhomepage…

Bernard

Posted on Thursday, August 31st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback