I wrote
> Heidegger, for example, shouldn't be readily
>>comprehensible. He assumed a great deal of background knowledge in his
>work:
>>who can blame him. And when he is bastardised to suit the purposes of a
>>wider audience I can't help but feel that something serious is missing.
>
Matthew wrote
>You're quite right, although wouldn't you say that he made quite a nasty
>habit of "bastardizing" himself--in rectoral addresses, student
>newspapers, and the like?
>
>Just asking.
>
Habit is too strong a word. He did this for a couple of years (33-34) and
the problems are well documented. But other public lectures etc. were not a
bastardisation of his thought, indeed some of his most important late works
come from them. The wider issue of Heidegger's politics is not really the
concern of this list. But there is a good ongoing discussion of it on the
parallel Heidegger mailing group.
Best wishes
Stuart
> Heidegger, for example, shouldn't be readily
>>comprehensible. He assumed a great deal of background knowledge in his
>work:
>>who can blame him. And when he is bastardised to suit the purposes of a
>>wider audience I can't help but feel that something serious is missing.
>
Matthew wrote
>You're quite right, although wouldn't you say that he made quite a nasty
>habit of "bastardizing" himself--in rectoral addresses, student
>newspapers, and the like?
>
>Just asking.
>
Habit is too strong a word. He did this for a couple of years (33-34) and
the problems are well documented. But other public lectures etc. were not a
bastardisation of his thought, indeed some of his most important late works
come from them. The wider issue of Heidegger's politics is not really the
concern of this list. But there is a good ongoing discussion of it on the
parallel Heidegger mailing group.
Best wishes
Stuart