Jo-Ann
Thanks for your comments on my comments. I still have a couple of problems:
> I'm not convinced by the above that "Being with a capital `B'" in _Being
>and Time_ is only a product of the English translation.
What then is it a product of? Heidegger could NOT have written Sein in any
other way. Usually Sein would be translated as 'being'. Macquarrie and
Robinson translated is as 'Being', as did many others in their wake. What
else is at stake here?
>However, I would maintain that in this early work, Heidegger stayed
closer to a
>phenomenological (that's "existential-phenomenological") project, at
>least... You wouldn't characterise Heid. unambiguously as an
existentialist, >would you? My preference would be: he's an
existential-phenomenologist doing
>ontology!
Fine, call him what you will. I certainly wouldn't characterise Heid
unambiguously as an existentialist', I thought that was my whole point. I
think to characterise Heid as an existentialist (or Kierkegaard or
Nietzsche, for that matter) runs a number of problems. Again, I'd refer
those interested to Kisiel's study.
>I'm not suggesting a search for the
>origin at all, but for a plurality of influences. The reception of
>early Hegel into France has also been a major. influence.
Absolutely agreed. Much scholarship on Foucault (and others) suffers from a
lack of awareness of the tradition they were working with and against. I
simply think that Heidegger is probably the most neglected influence on
Foucault, but as I said, I have written on his debt to Hegel too.
>Thanks for clarifying your thinking about the above issues,
>especially your description of your project above; I'd look forward to
>reading such a study, even though I too will take Foucault's activism--
>and his type of activism. Heidegger had an activist side, too,
>unfortunately--in that it served fascism, as you know.
Thanks for this, it's been enjoyable. And yet again, I realise I need to
know Sartre better. But, I confess I find Being and Nothingness difficult to
read, not because of the complexity of the ideas, but because I think it so
fundamentally misconceived I keep throwing the book down in frustration. I
will try again.
Heidegger's politics is another issue. I don't agree with this summary that
his activism 'served fascism'. It's far far more complicated than that, but
that is an issue for another time, and probably another list.
Best wishes
Stuart
Thanks for your comments on my comments. I still have a couple of problems:
> I'm not convinced by the above that "Being with a capital `B'" in _Being
>and Time_ is only a product of the English translation.
What then is it a product of? Heidegger could NOT have written Sein in any
other way. Usually Sein would be translated as 'being'. Macquarrie and
Robinson translated is as 'Being', as did many others in their wake. What
else is at stake here?
>However, I would maintain that in this early work, Heidegger stayed
closer to a
>phenomenological (that's "existential-phenomenological") project, at
>least... You wouldn't characterise Heid. unambiguously as an
existentialist, >would you? My preference would be: he's an
existential-phenomenologist doing
>ontology!
Fine, call him what you will. I certainly wouldn't characterise Heid
unambiguously as an existentialist', I thought that was my whole point. I
think to characterise Heid as an existentialist (or Kierkegaard or
Nietzsche, for that matter) runs a number of problems. Again, I'd refer
those interested to Kisiel's study.
>I'm not suggesting a search for the
>origin at all, but for a plurality of influences. The reception of
>early Hegel into France has also been a major. influence.
Absolutely agreed. Much scholarship on Foucault (and others) suffers from a
lack of awareness of the tradition they were working with and against. I
simply think that Heidegger is probably the most neglected influence on
Foucault, but as I said, I have written on his debt to Hegel too.
>Thanks for clarifying your thinking about the above issues,
>especially your description of your project above; I'd look forward to
>reading such a study, even though I too will take Foucault's activism--
>and his type of activism. Heidegger had an activist side, too,
>unfortunately--in that it served fascism, as you know.
Thanks for this, it's been enjoyable. And yet again, I realise I need to
know Sartre better. But, I confess I find Being and Nothingness difficult to
read, not because of the complexity of the ideas, but because I think it so
fundamentally misconceived I keep throwing the book down in frustration. I
will try again.
Heidegger's politics is another issue. I don't agree with this summary that
his activism 'served fascism'. It's far far more complicated than that, but
that is an issue for another time, and probably another list.
Best wishes
Stuart