on 4/22/03 5:52 PM, Joseph Billings at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> It won't be possible to re-articulate the analytic of
> Dasein in an e-mail, but I will be happy to engage in a
> page by page "discussion" of B/T with anyone who is
> interested. But please take it on faith, any reduction of
> Heidegger to "redundant linguistic variations of Husserl
> and others," and in particular to Hanna Arendt can only be
> made by someone who either has not read Being and Time or
> has absolutely no grasp of the project --really. If you do
> not understand B/T, cop to it, and engage someone who has
> at least a basic understanding of the project and its
> problems; it is one of the world's great books and
> desparately apropo to the ills of modernity. If you dodge
> this work, you are the loser.
>
> Joe
Me name calling. Some members of this group are quite fantastic!
No, I do not consider B/T one of the world's great books. For those with a
"metaphysical need", perhaps so. The very quest to develop such an elaborate
schematic for being is worth at least questioning; the need for universals
while acknowledging fragmentation even more so.
Heidegger's emphasis on formal criteria of beauty, decontextualized, and
disinterested, seems distinctly unmodern [reactionary] and highly convenient
for disassociating himself from his own historical context, while benefiting
from it [academic post, audience, and all that]. As someone from the US,
this is worth examining.
Heidegger believed that we enter the state of metaphysical Being [vs.
individuated states of being] precisely at a paradoxical place where we are
conscious of the beyond-conscious being-in-itself and in time
[simplistically put]. A beyond-dialectic, in that divisions of being have
been surpassed. Decline has been replaced with ascendant being. This is the
transcendent moment. That "great art" [of world-historical significance,
note] accomplishes this is at the heart of his aesthetic. Again,
questionable during a fascist regime.
My apologies for so many submissions. I simply wish to defend myself when
disingenuously put down. In particular, to reiterate a simple comment which
questioned H's desirablity in developing an aesthetic approach!? Especially,
while circumventing the demand to speak the language of a philosopher I do
not care for. Especially if only to impress. Natural language arguments are
legitimate.
Susanna
|