My two cents (for what they are worth)...
First one: a quote from Heidegger, not difficult to know by heart:
"Ontology is only possible as phenomenology" (BT p.35 - My translation,
since I only have a German and a Dutch copy here).
Although Heidegger, needs a lot of words to say what he wants to say,
sometimes he can be very short and clear. ;-)
To some extent I agree with Susanna that Heidegger might not be the best
entry of philosophy into art (and cinema), but that also depends on what
you want to study and what falls into your category of art (I hope it's
not only for the sake of Heidegger himself).
Regarding cinema, and then especially Documentary (where I'm working
on), Heidegger (BT) has proven to be very useful to me, but also
included in some genealogical context via the lines
Nietsche-Heidegger-Gadamer and Husserl-Heidegger-Ricoeur. The very
phenomenological foundation Heidegger gives to his ontology is very
important (if not fundamental) to my (definition of a) hermeneutic
approach of Documentary. But again, Heidegger (also) read through the
glasses of those, and many other, philosophers ... (and sometimes
through my own glasses, if they're not too coloured - but hey, that's
exactly what H is writing about :-) can make it very worthwhile.
>Heidegger is also dull as dishwater and needlessly obscurantist. Nor are
>endless variations on modes of being, and consequent constructs of
>meta-Being, terribly original. He belongs in the camp of existentialists
>because of his preoccupation with ontology, and the explicit placement of
>existence before essence. So did others. On the authenticity front, he is
>simply unconvincing to me.
>
>
Cent two: Being dull and obscurantist are qualifications about his
style, but not about his philosophy. And I don't share these
qualifications. I don't mind that he is using many words - to me it
makes his philosophy very meticulous/precise. His (lack of) originality
is not important to me (and for what I want to do with Heidegger). And
to dismiss his philosophy because of this or his ideology or the wrong
colour of his shirt seems simply to simple to me. It might be worthwhile
to read H again with a different pair of glasses on
(Being-in-a-different-world, so to say), because IMHO Heidegger has
definitely something interesting to bring in regarding cinema.
Best regards,
Kees Bakker
--
|