Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Heidegger's Indifference
The central notion of Heidegger's mature period is 'Ontological Difference'. The 'difference' referred to is that between Being and beings, the forgetting of which, according to Heidegger, constitutes the Nihilistic subjectivism of Modernity. Now, this difference seems isomorphic to that between Spinoza's nature naturing and nature natured, Schopenhauer's Will and objectification, and Bergson's elan vital and enervated precipitant. in contrast with which Being seems barren. Furthermore, some languages do not even have a word for 'Being'. So, the epochal significance, and the existential benefits of remembering it, that Heidegger finds in Being, are not easy to appreciate. Regardless, it is undeniable that Ontological Difference is unbalanced--Heidegger plainly accords priority to Being over beings. Furthermore, he offers no grounds for the generation of beings out of Being, or for the differentiation between beings. Notably groundless, therefore, are the notions of Dasein and 'ownmost' that are central to his innovative earlier work. If there is any misunderstanding of what he is trying to accomplish, his silence, which is in stark contrast to Nietzsche's repeated revisits to and criticisms of his previous projects, only encourages it. So, as is, a more apt characterization of Heidegger's most prominent later notion might be 'Ontological Indifference'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll stick w/the lessons I learned from Plato's distinctions between Being and Not-Being in "Sophist" before I rush out and buy into Heiddegger's Dansein and begin to worry about "plural" forms. ;-)
ReplyDeletePlato is not my own go-to guy on the topic, though I never rule out a fresh discovery from him.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to "learning" philosophy, no one other than Plato & Nietzsche requires you to think for yourself.
ReplyDeleteGnothi Seauton.
Or, it took them to make you realize that such is the case with most Philosophers.
ReplyDeleteI meant to "think" in an active vice passive sense.
ReplyDeleteSo did I, the point being that most other Philosophies demand the same internalization that you have found in only Plato and Nietzsche.
ReplyDeleteNo, its not the same... as I meant it in a sense similar to what Nietzsche means in His "Philosophy During the Tragic Age"...
ReplyDeleteTHIS attempt to relate the history of the earlier Greek philosophers distinguishes itself from similar attempts by its brevity. This has been accomplished by mentioning but a small number of the doctrines of every philosopher, ie., by incompleteness. Those doctrines, however, have been selected in which the personal element of the philosopher reechoes most strongly; whereas a complete enumeration of all possible propositions handed down to us -- as is the custom in textbooks-merely brings about one thing, the absolute silencing of the personal element. It is through this that those records become so tedious; for in systems which have been refuted it is only this personal element that can still interest us, for this alone is eternally irrefutable.
Their "incompleteness" forces the reader to actively fill in the blanks. To "ruminate" like a pied cow.... exercising the only form of thought that culture-less hybrid Moderns like ourselves are capable.
And the only way to attain to the "personal" element, is by making it one's own. What "blank" did Nietzsche "fill in" when he affirmed Eternal Recurrence?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't fill in any. He created a blank where none previously existed and then left it to the reader himself to fill in for himself. And that's the point.
ReplyDeleteAnd how does the reader "fill that in" without internalizing his procedure? And, how is that any different than what any other major Philosopher does? Are you implying that Critique of Pure Reason does not challenge you?
ReplyDeletePedantic philosophers, like Kant, can be extremely challenging. The point is, there's very little in Kant that Plato didn't offer in a much more interesting, easily understood and ultimately more memorable fashion.
ReplyDeleteLogical rope dancer vs intuitive leaping fool.
ReplyDeleteGive me the leaping fool every time.