2) I've been studying philosophy for some time now, and I'm too familiar with Ms. Chandler's approach. Lambasting a thinker because he/she was "too" influenced by those before is a daunting and dangerous pursuit.
Is this a case of mistaken identity. There is no possibility that anyone could be too familiar with my work. I've been a practicing graphic designer for years, and am shifting into science communications. The only public contributions I've made are in the form of images for high tech companies, animations for kiosks, and the like. My contributions to this listserv have also been quite negligible.
I certainly wasn't criticizing H for being influenced by predecessors. My question mark is why so much credit is given to Heidegger, especially given the environment he developed his theories of art and history.
It would never occur to me to suggest self-, academic-, or public censoring of any writer. I do feel perfectly content questioning [not putting down] why someone might emphasize a writer/philosopher however. My point/comment was that he is not the best philosopher for advancing a philosophical exploration of art. An opinion. I also simply do not believe there is much that is original in his thinking. Many of his peers were silenced, and it is not clear to me where the thin lines between his writings, those of others, and political leanings might rest.
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. Bringing Kierkegaard into his mix is interesting. And having a weakness for all explorations into time, I found H compelling enough to read at one point in time.
H was also very fortunate to be so deeply interwoven with a living tradition in philosophy. His connection to his past and future is not a criticism. His failure to sufficiently credit the extent of those influences is. Originality is not a requirement for philosophers. To sustain a particular individual's philosophy well beyond it's time, especially when it smacks of reactionary thinking, raises the bar. I still have heard nothing regarding H's unique contribution to philosophy beyond relating Kierkegaard and Husserl. Or why any of us should prefer him over more lucid writers.
Susanna
on 4/23/03 2:27 PM, Blair Miller at [log in to unmask] wrote:
Not to prolong anything, but:
1) We study all sorts of past modes of thought, and appraise them. We study the ancient Greeks, admire many things about their drive for excellence, etc., and their original thought, yet we're (hopefully) also mindful about the fact that the only people to benefit from this way of life were able-bodied, well-aged Greek men. We can be conscious of both, without feeling the need to write off ancient Athens as a hub of inequality and/or a failure. Based on this, while I lament the many roles Heidegger played in the insurgence of Nazism, I'm not about to write off his work (something that, by definition is meant to both indicate the situation during which it's written AND transcend its being bound to time and place). If one was judicious about the man instead of vindictive, perhaps the salient, special moments in his work wouldn't have to be eradicated so that we can feel like we've said enough against Nazi Germany (will we ever?).
2) I've been studying philosophy for some time now, and I'm too familiar with Ms. Chandler's approach. Lambasting a thinker because he/she was "too" influenced by those before is a daunting and dangerous pursuit. I wonder, where do you draw the line? If anyone who was greatly influenced by Fichte, Schelling, Kant, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Husserl and/or Hannah Arendt deserves to be criticized for it, who has written since the 19th century that we can't criticize along these lines? Such a "criticism" (if it even is) is not only broad enough to be a non-sequitir, but it betrays a desire to force people's writings to fit into a pre-approved structure/outlook, as embodied by the thinkers mentioned (many of whom for which it may quite literally be impossible to avoid "being influenced" by). However polemical or fun it may be to connect someone's writing to the works of others and then effectively burn that bridge by looking down on them for being "unoriginal," it's also edging on sloppy critique.
>From: Susanna Chandler
>Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Heidegger and the cinema: Susanna Chandler
>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:47:05 -0400
>
>Plus ça change, plus de le même chose
>
>Heidegger was not merely a man with a widely held view which we generally
>find distasteful, or even repulsive, today. The past does not make me
>squeamish or require whitewashing in the name of pc rhetoric. Nor do I
>believe blindly in progress so as to believe we are so greatly improved in
>character since Heidegger's time.
>
>All That Is Great Stands In The Storm
>
>Heidegger leap-frogged his career during the first year of the newly elected
>Nazi party, as a vociferous member. Appointed Rector of University of
>Freiberg the same year the National Socialists came to power, he applied
>jewish cleansing laws to the student population, is known to have denounced
>collegues, and gave rousing speeches about the need for unification. He
>believed that the fragmentation of Germany at the time was a "forgetting of
>being". He sought models for restoration to authentic / unified being in his
>Greek studies. He did resign the next year, acting as Rector [chancellor]
>for only 10 months. And did help a few jewish friends with letters of
>recommendation. A small nod in the direction of the intellectual and
>academic debt he owed to jewish scholars such as his mentor Husserl, whose
>chair he was given at Freiberg.
>
>Interestingly, it was in the years just after stepping down from being the
>Rector, that Heidegger devoted himself to the origin of works of art. He
>found his models in Greek antiquity. It is helpful to remember that National
>Socialists were also very interested in the subject of the origins of art.
>They too wished to unify and transform their being-in-the-world, so to
>speak, into a great collective Dasein, modeled on certain origins in the
>past.
>
>Yes, But What Was He Saying
>
>Having read Heidegger's Sein and Zeit many times, and later works, many too
>many times [enough years ago now], particularly in the context of
>Existentialism [small e is fine]. Looking back he seems nothing more than a
>ontologist of the metaphysical variety, sandwiched between Husserl's far
>more original Phenomenology, and the kind of ontology that could
>existentially hold up to fascism: Sartre and Camus. While he made an
>interesting connection between Kierkegaard [mr. multiple pseudonym] and
>Husserl, his work is largely stuffy armchair dull, and repetitious when not
>derivative. What is Heidegger's contribution if you take away Fichte [a
>genuinely maligned philosopher because of his pan-germanic ideas],
>Schelling, Kant, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzche, and most of all
>Husserl? The philosopher of history, Herder [creator of the seminar as a
>teaching form] both informed, and provides a great contrast. It is also easy
>to speculate on how much Hannah Arendt, his mistress, had to do with Sein
>und Zeit?
>
>In any case he is ultimately a idealistic metaphysician. Which is fine if
>that's what you're into. Ontology, idealism, exploration of history, and
>existentialism are all extremely applicable to film theory. But as to
>looking for inspiration from the origins of art, give me the usual suspects
>listed above, Bergson, Deleuze, Benjamin, Pierce. Even old Wittgenstein
>[whose negotiations with his own identity and ultimately Hitler's inner
>circle to preserve status of his sisters so they would not have to leave
>Austria] is much more interesting as far as art theory and philosophy goes.
>
>It's not his past, it's his zeitgeist, his being-in-his-time.
>
>Susanna Chandler
>
>
>on 4/22/03 7:15 PM, richard at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Here we go again into the well trodden muck. Because H "fulfilled his role"
> > in Nazi Germany we are obligated on "sufficient" grounds to discard or
> > disregard his work and look elsewhere. Just as Susanna is obligated by this
> > trite line of argumentation to trash Newton, Einstein, Freud, Nietzsche and
> > innumerable others (including those who blatantly degrade the opposite
> > gender) based on the disapproval of their perceived reprehensible
> > private/public conduct.
> > As for the mind-altering B/T, the lack of background (supposedly on the
> > above-mentioned grounds) to apprehend its project and influence is to
> > confirm an unjustifiable loss. Consider confirmation in the recommended and
> > superb "silence of the limbs;.
> > Regards, Richard
> >
> >
> > Original Message -----
> > From: "Joseph Billings"
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Heidegger and the cinema: Susanna Chandler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. <http://g.msn.com/8HMJENCA/2752> Get 2 months FREE*.