Re: Introduction to Heidegger- Dasein

Allen,

You write:
> I mean to suggest that  Heideggger's style of enacting/speaking 
> his interpretation of Artistotle, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche in 
> different texts throughout his work merit (that is they reward)
> being given the presumptive status of an authoritative voice/ 
> moodful attunement(Stimme/Stimmung) to the canonical voices of 
> the tradition for a particular time and place.

The texts of Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche can indeed be 
seen as the canonical voices of the tradition of continental 
philosophy. However, with Heidegger's voice representing _this_ 
side of the heteronomical relation? That would fit the 
Marburgian Heidegger. What about the Zuercher Heidegger?
  
> The status of being such an interpreter is earned/granted through 
> a delicate unspoken process of unfolding, and once earned/granted 
> is still only presumptive-- that is it doesn't have the weight of 
> an actual canonical work ( thought someday it might) and  any 
> given work or saying of such an interpreter could have been 
> spoken in a moment of " Akrasia," wrong headed bemoodedness, and 
> granted Heidegger was much more prone to such moments in his later 
> years than his earlier ones.

This cannot be meant in an apologetic sense, since I don't 
see why Heidegger would need it - in this context. The 
Marburgian Heidegger has an exceptional sense of tradition 
and is as such a worthy descendant of his great Mediaeval 
predecessors. The Zuercher Heidegger is the (post-)modern 
philosopher who has become Rorty's edifyer. An _akratos_ 
is someone who is not his own master. Within the context 
of this thread this description would fit the younger 
Heidegger. The older one declares himself a free man, but 
for his shyness and wish to protect.

> My model here is obviously rabbinic, and perhaps what we are 
> disputing here is whether Heidegger's presumptive weight should be 
> that of a Hillel (very few moments of Akrasia) or Shammai (mostly 
> worngheaded in the way the tradition has come to read him) or 
> somewhere in the middle.

Did Shammai knowingly end his heteronomical relation with 
the canonical texts? Did he ever see himself as a "Mosaer" 
in the same sense as Heidegger saw himself as a 
Hegelianer?
 
> However we parce it, I don't think this problem of how to weigh 
> Heidegger's interpretive voice, especially in relation to the 
> canonized voices is any small matter.

This is probably true for all continental philosophers. 
How would we weigh Derrida, Gadamer, Habermas, Ricoeur?

> There is an essay on my web page entitled " Hermes' 
> Rhetorical problem" which tries to outline the shape of this 
> problem a bit, but its thinking is "prior" to the present 
> point in our discussion and not directly relevant. 
> (So why am I mentioning it?)

Allen, on this list "prior" means "more fundamental". 
And that is certainly a very good reason to read 
your article. Many thanks for your views on Heidegger 
and the ethics of hermeneutics in this exchange of 
mails!

Kindest regards,
Henk



     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---