In response to Stuart Elden:
Without dragging this discussion through all points below again, I'll just
say: about issue of "being/Being"--I meant only that Heidegger was up to
metaphysics, even in BEING AND TIME, in spite of phenomenological
intentions to avoid such. This metaphysical Heidegger then "blossoms" in
later works.
Your other comments are enlightening--and
I've heard similar reactions to yours over B. AND NOTHINGNESS!
Again, good luck with your Heid--Fouc. project; to quote the eminently
quotable Foucault: "Is not discourse, in its most profound determination,
a `trace'?" (AK, 210)
Jo-Ann Pilardi
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Stuart Elden wrote:
> 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
>
Without dragging this discussion through all points below again, I'll just
say: about issue of "being/Being"--I meant only that Heidegger was up to
metaphysics, even in BEING AND TIME, in spite of phenomenological
intentions to avoid such. This metaphysical Heidegger then "blossoms" in
later works.
Your other comments are enlightening--and
I've heard similar reactions to yours over B. AND NOTHINGNESS!
Again, good luck with your Heid--Fouc. project; to quote the eminently
quotable Foucault: "Is not discourse, in its most profound determination,
a `trace'?" (AK, 210)
Jo-Ann Pilardi
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Stuart Elden wrote:
> 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
>