<<Heidegger was nearly on the mark in his belief that
art
> could express the
> full being of the metaphysical
What do you think Heidegger meant? How was he right?
How
was he wrong?>>>
And, I would add, how can you possibly express that
which is metaphysical and therefore entirely abstract,
as far as thinking is concerned, in material form -
artistic or otherwise? Let's not confuse the purely
metaphoric for something else, by confused semantic
categories.
<<mingled with pure
> being-in-the-world.
>What do you think Heidegger meant by these
>expressions?
>What do you mean when you use them?
Where H
> went wrong was indeed, as Richard pointed out, that
the
> causality between
> origins and ontology simply do not exist any longer
>What do you mean? Exactly what claim, located where,
>are
>you disputing?
>And this
> proved dangerous to the extreme.
Why? What proved dangerous?>>>
I agree with the rigorous questioning here. As a
sociological comment: in this current age of
simulation/simulated reality and digital thus
malleable information, I believe there is something
similar happening at an intellectual level. Namely,
that *aesthetic* thought construction sometimes
replaces sensible and intelligent thought. Theory is
sometimes artistic rather than philosophical, with all
the problems that implies. The criteria is to appear
clever or cool in relation to established parameters
ie. fashion, rather than challenge and deconstruct.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|