FW: slave morality and supraman morality

+ From: "Laurence Paul Hemming" <lph@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:50:51 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2271D.58DC4280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Kenneth,

Well, I suppose I'd have to say "it's a fair cop gov", except that the
stuff on the Notre Dame site is written about me rather than by me, and
my suspicion of Karl Loewith's ability actually to interpret Heidegger
is now a matter of public record. My slight resistance to joining the
Thomists is perhaps motivated by my deep love and respect of St. Thomas'
work - for me the epithet Thomist indicates someone who wants to
interpret Aquinas' writings as belonging in some sense to a
philosophical system. One of the best interpreters of Aquinas I know
points out that nowhere to his knowledge does Aquinas ever call a
Christian 'philosophus' reserving the term for the ancient authors or,
at among the theists, only some of the Arab interpreters of Aristotle.
I too, don't think Aquinas ever set out to write 'system' or even be a
'philosopher', and I do think Heidegger was of the same opinion, though
I'm very much looking forward to the new volume of the Gesamtausgabe due
out from Klostermann this autumn (I believe) containing his lectures on
the history of philosophy from Aquinas to Kant, which might clarify
things a bit. So I hope you won't still make me sit amongst the
Thomists, because I'm really not sure that's where I belong (and I don't
want to sit with the Heideggerians either, for much the same reasons!).

As to the 'over' as opposed to 'supra' - Heidegger himself interprets it
as a reference to transcendence, so perhaps transman would be another
alternative - but the 'over' really indicates the metaphysical
determination of the epekeina tes ousias of Plato, so it could at least
be argued that it's better to keep Latinity out of all this, especially
given Heidegger's views on the Romans (cf. for instance his remarks in
the Parmenides lectures).

Thanks.

Laurence

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kenneth
Johnson
Sent: 08 July 2002 19:59
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: slave morality and supraman morality

>Dear Kenneth,
>
>Kind of you to put me among the Thomists - though I'm not entirely sure
>they would applaud my arrival in their midst.
>
>'Overman' is a good translation of Uebermesnch because, as Gerald
>Kaufman points out in the introduction to his translation of die
>Froehliche Wissenschaft, it has its origins in Emerson's 'Oversoul'.
>
>Laurence

You mean Walter Kaufman of course - - and my comment would also apply to
Emerson, "supra" would've been super for him too, he knew latin and this
word was available in his time, originating as it did in the 14th
century, but was probably not quite so common then as now and of course
Emerson wanted to convince the commons - - -

The origin of my situating you among the thomists was twofold, one real
the other drawn as conclusion, as your exchange with Rene brimmed over
with images of Zarathustra's encounter with the higher man and of what
little i've read of your work on the Thomist sites you are, at the
least, and certainly identifiable as, a higher man, able to think
brilliantly all the way up to that point where. . . .

the following excerpt is from a review of a book at University of Notre
Dame Press you wrote, i uppercased the point part, found at:

http://www.undpress.nd.edu/catalogs/Spring2002/0-268-03058-8.shtml

Heidegger's Atheism also attempts to trace new possibilities in the
relationship between theology and philosophy in Heidegger's critique of
metaphysics. Hemming argues that Heidegger criticizes the tradition of
metaphysics from Aristotle and Plato through Nietzsche and Hegel because
it traces a particular understanding of being in relation to God--even
when that God is announced as dead. In contrast, Heidegger sees the task
of philosophy as the self-understanding of human existence, and claims
PHILOSOPHY OFFERS NO DEFINITIVES REGARDING WHAT GOD HUMANITY MIGHT
ENCOUNTER. Consequently, Hemming argues, Heidegger's atheism is an
implicit critique of theology. Yet, Hemming also contends Heidegger's
work resonates with the concerns of Christian faith, especially the
Catholic tradition.

or another snippet, where you explore: "Heidegger's crucial relationship
to scholasticism and, in particular, to Thomas Aquinas."
-------------------------

or at another site for which i've lost the url:

The Thomist 62 (1998): 373-418

HEIDEGGER'S GOD

Laurence Paul Hemming

Peterhouse, University of Cambridge

Cambridge, England

THE QUESTION OF Heidegger's God is normally treated as a supplement, a
hanging thread at the edge of the weave of his work. Why should we be
concerned with Heidegger's God? Which is to say, is the question of
Heidegger's God simply an internal question about Heidegger's thought,
or is something else at stake? What is at issue here can to some extent
be explained by Karl Lwith's persistent accusation that Heidegger had
supplanted God with "being,"(1) which is tantamount to saying that in
contradistinction to Scholasticism, which appeared to be saying that God
and being are the same, for Heidegger, being and God are the
same--what's the difference? Lwith even goes so far as to suggest that
Heidegger is nothing other than a latter-day Scotist.(2) The question
may be asked in a more sophisticated form as to what extent is Heidegger
still in dialogue with the Christian tradition which arises out of
Scholasticism and can it be in any sense clarified by trying to
understand better Heidegger's God?

Yet in considering the place of God, or the God, gods, and die Gttlichen
(let us leave this term untranslated for now) as supplemental in
Heidegger's work, already a decision has been made, a forcing of
Heidegger's God on to the margin. If I do not believe in God myself (or
if I do, and know the God well in

373

1. Heidegger--Denker in drftiger Zeit (1953; rev. ed. [1960] published
in Smtliche Schriften, Band 8 [Stuttgart: Metzler, 1984]; English
translation in Martin Heidegger, European Nihilism, ed. Richard Wolin
[New York: Columbia, 1995]).

2. Ibid. Cf. the footnote on p. 139 (p. 254 of the English text) which
refers to pp. 348-51 of Heidegger's 1916 Habilitationsschrift, Die
Kategorien- und Bedeutungslehre des Duns Scotus, published in Frhe
Schriften (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1972).

x

--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2271D.58DC4280
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">

<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">

<style>

</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

Dear Kenneth,</=
p>

 

Well, I suppose I’d have to =
say
“it’s a fair cop gov”, except that the stuff on the =
Notre
Dame site is written about me rather than by me, and my suspicion of =
Karl
Loewith’s ability actually to interpret Heidegger is now a matter =
of
public record.  My slight resistance to joining the Thomists is =
perhaps
motivated by my deep love and respect of St.
Thomas’ work =
– for
me the epithet Thomist indicates someone who wants to interpret =
Aquinas’
writings as belonging in some sense to a philosophical system.  One =
of the
best interpreters of Aquinas I know points out that nowhere to his =
knowledge
does Aquinas ever call a Christian ‘philosophus’ reserving =
the term
for the ancient authors or, at among the theists, only some of the Arab
interpreters of Aristotle.  I too, don’t think Aquinas ever =
set out
to write ‘system’ or even be a ‘philosopher’, =
and I do
think Heidegger was of the same opinion, though I’m very much =
looking
forward to the new volume of the Gesamtausgabe due out from Klostermann =
this
autumn (I believe) containing his lectures on the history of philosophy =
from
Aquinas to Kant, which might clarify things a bit.  So I hope you
won’t still make me sit amongst the Thomists, because I’m =
really
not sure that’s where I belong (and I don’t want to sit with =
the Heideggerians
either, for much the same reasons!).

 

As to the ‘over’ as =
opposed to
‘supra’ – Heidegger himself interprets it as a =
reference to
transcendence, so perhaps transman would be another alternative – =
but the
‘over’ really indicates the metaphysical determination of =
the
epekeina tes ousias of Plato, so it could at least be argued that =
it’s
better to keep Latinity out of all this, especially given =
Heidegger’s
views on the Romans (cf. for instance his remarks in the Parmenides =
lectures).

 

Thanks.

 

Laurence

 

 

-----Original
Message----- 
From:
owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kenneth =
Johnson 
Sent: 08
July 2002 19:59 
To:
heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: slave =
morality and
supraman morality

 

 
>Dear Kenneth, 
> 
>Kind of you to put me among the Thomists - though I'm not entirely =
sure 
>they would applaud my arrival in their midst. 
> 
>'Overman' is a good translation of Uebermesnch because, as =
Gerald 
>Kaufman points out in the introduction to his translation of die 
>Froehliche Wissenschaft, it has its origins in Emerson's =
'Oversoul'. 
> 
>Laurence 
 
You mean Walter Kaufman of course - - and my comment would also apply to
Emerson, "supra" would've been super for him too, he knew =
latin and
this word was available in his time, originating as it did in the 14th =
century,
but was probably not quite so common then as now and of course Emerson =
wanted
to convince the commons - - - 
 
The origin of my situating you among the thomists was twofold, one real =
the
other drawn as conclusion, as your exchange with Rene brimmed over with =
images
of Zarathustra's encounter with the higher man and of what little i've =
read of
your work on the Thomist sites you are, at the least, and certainly
identifiable as, a higher man, able to think brilliantly all the way up =
to that
point where. . . . 
 
the following excerpt is from a review of a book at =
University of
Notre Dame Press you wrote, i uppercased the point part, found at: 
 
http://www.undpress.nd.edu/catalogs/Spring2002/0-268-03058-8.shtml 
 
Heidegger's Atheism also attempts to trace new possibilities in the
relationship between theology and philosophy in Heidegger's critique of
metaphysics. Hemming argues that Heidegger criticizes the tradition of
metaphysics from Aristotle and Plato through Nietzsche and Hegel because =
it
traces a particular understanding of being in relation to God--even when =
that
God is announced as dead. In contrast, Heidegger sees the task of =
philosophy as
the self-understanding of human existence, and claims PHILOSOPHY OFFERS =
NO
DEFINITIVES REGARDING WHAT GOD HUMANITY MIGHT ENCOUNTER. Consequently, =
Hemming
argues, Heidegger's atheism is an implicit critique of theology. Yet, =
Hemming
also contends Heidegger's work resonates with the concerns of Christian =
faith,
especially the Catholic tradition. 
 
or another snippet, where you explore: "Heidegger's crucial =
relationship
to scholasticism and, in particular, to Thomas Aquinas." 
------------------------- 
 
or at another site for which i've lost the url: 
 
The Thomist 62 (1998): 373-418 
 
HEIDEGGER'S GOD 
 
Laurence Paul Hemming 
 
Peterhouse, University of Cambridge 
 
Cambridge, England 
 
THE QUESTION OF Heidegger's God is normally treated as a supplement, a =
hanging
thread at the edge of the weave of his work. Why should we be concerned =
with
Heidegger's God? Which is to say, is the question of Heidegger's God =
simply an
internal question about Heidegger's thought, or is something else at =
stake?
What is at issue here can to some extent be explained by Karl Lwith's
persistent accusation that Heidegger had supplanted God with =
"being,"(1)
which is tantamount to saying that in contradistinction to =
Scholasticism, which
appeared to be saying that God and being are the same, for Heidegger, =
being and
God are the same--what's the difference? Lwith even goes so far as to =
suggest
that Heidegger is nothing other than a latter-day Scotist.(2) The =
question may
be asked in a more sophisticated form as to what extent is Heidegger =
still in
dialogue with the Christian tradition which arises out of Scholasticism =
and can
it be in any sense clarified by trying to understand better Heidegger's =
God? 
 
Yet in considering the place of God, or the God, gods, and die Gttlichen =
(let
us leave this term untranslated for now) as supplemental in Heidegger's =
work,
already a decision has been made, a forcing of Heidegger's God on to the
margin. If I do not believe in God myself (or if I do, and know the God =
well in 
 
373 
 
1. Heidegger--Denker in drftiger Zeit (1953; rev. ed. [1960] published =
in
Smtliche Schriften, Band 8 [Stuttgart: Metzler, 1984]; English =
translation in
Martin Heidegger, European Nihilism, ed. Richard Wolin [New York: =
Columbia,
1995]). 
 
2. Ibid. Cf. the footnote on p. 139 (p. 254 of the English text) which =
refers
to pp. 348-51 of Heidegger's 1916 Habilitationsschrift, Die Kategorien- =
und
Bedeutungslehre des Duns Scotus, published in Frhe Schriften (Frankfurt:
Klostermann, 1972). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
x 
 
 
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- 

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2271D.58DC4280--

--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

+ Previous by Thread: RE: slave morality and supraman morality
+ Next by Thread: Re: FW: slave morality and supraman morality

Partial thread listing:

FW: slave morality and supraman morality, (continued…)

FW: slave morality and supraman morality, Laurence Paul Hemming

Re: FW: slave morality and supraman morality, Kenneth Johnson

FW: Slavoj Zizek "AGAINST THE DOUBLE BLACKMAIL", Jan Straathof (1999-04-07)

<Possible follow-up(s)>

Re: Slavoj Zizek "AGAINST THE DOUBLE BLACKMAIL", jfoster

RE: Slavoj Zizek "AGAINST THE DOUBLE BLACKMAIL", Bob or Diane Guevara {H}