-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Stuart Elden [
mailto:stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Verzonden: zaterdag 13 september 2003 21:04
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: Gesamtausgabe Question
Rene
Sorry for the delay in replying
Not at all, Stuart
I'm not at all sure I agree with the Baeumler vs. Colli/Montinari point re
Nietzsche's Nachlass. The problem of the Will to Power is that it appears as
a book, just as any other one of Nietzsche's, with the illusion that it is
finished, polished, etc. To read the later volumes of the KSA edition is to
know these are notes, and no more.
It's a paradox, that Heidegger's own 'philological' labors - for some time
he was connected to the Nietzsche edition - concern the, indeed varied,
genesis of "Will to Power". It's directly of philosphical importance, because
Nietzsche's plans towards a new systematic work date from immediately after
the ER experience. Because of ER, WtP had to be reconsidered as the last factum
of ALL reality, a thing which sofar he had not been capable of.
Nietzsche seems to have made several ordenings, with different head- and under-
titles. The Baeumler ed. is according to one of them, so it is Nietzsche's
book, as he conceived it at that definite moment. There's much to criticize
as to Baeumler, and H sometimes extrapolates fundamental aphorisms, that were
lost in dark corners because of a superficial understanding - but as such it
seems to me to be superior to ANY mere enumeration, however perfect according
to scientific standards.
The work of Heidegger in reading Nietzche is valuable, even if 'wrong', but
it seems to me that's a different exercise to editing his work.
I take the point about a critical edition, as i said, but there is surely a
midpath? An edition that has some level of critical apparatus need not be
overwhelming. Look, for example, at the recent editions of Foucault's
lectures from the College de France. They are far from unreadable, but the
editors have done, I think, a very useful job in annotating, and showing
where the tapes diverge from the manuscripts.
Of course, Stuart, that is all very good. As long as an edition is
a philological means to philosophical ends, and not the other way
around. But Heidegger knew about the power of technology - there's
a locus where he explicitly touches on critical editions and handbooks.
So he took care. The GA volumes are fine, the reader is still weak.
And you're right of course about the problem of translation, but I do think
the Beitraege in English is a special case. And von Hermann was in a
particularly privileged position re Emad and Maly to listen to the
criticisms of the manuscript before its publication. There is also the
reference in the translator's intro where E&M say that von Herrmann went
through every line in the book discussing its meaning.
More praise for the man. Personnally, English translation and writing
has helped me greatly. One is forced to find, almost invent the right
words. (Dutch is quite close to German) It's just that in order to
know one's way with Heidegger in English or French, one already must
have the German in the ear.
But it's easier than Greek or Chinese. Suppose a Chinese genius enters
the scene tomorrow... The Chinese (and Coreans, Japanese) btw are remarkably
present on the Net.
(Ask some german Heidegger words, and ideograms will appear)
(suppose one day the Allied attack China with Strauss, and they hit back
with Heidegger)
Just some thoughts, sorry again for the delay
best
Stuart
thanks, best to you
Rene
> One can criticize Baeumler for his edition of "Der Wille zur
> Macht", but
> he at least brought SOME shape in it. which makes it readable,
> while Schlechta
> and Colli/Montinari only de-structed aphorisms without con-structing any
> connection. Better starting with a defective scheme, knowing
> that it's defective,
> than fooling yourself, that you have at least a secure basis.
> There is none in
> thinking, and reading is just circling. The question is how to
> get *into* the circle,
> not to evade it, because there's no stable path. Heidegger has
> showed how
> five fundamental notions should be thought together, in order
> to get into view
> the hidden unity of Nietzsche's thinking and therewith of metaphysics.
> Philology just cannot help in these matters, it can only hinder.
> I see here the damage done by the critical-edition-virus:
> Hoelderlin, Celan
> and many others torn apart. In the case of Heidegger,
> philological considerations
> might lead to the illusion of a correct text as the basis of a
> then beginning
> interpretation. This idea of a correct text is fiction, as is
> the idea of
> interpretation linked to it. Its presuppositions are precisely
> the ones Heidegger
> has deciphered in the texts written by him, for instance: the
> idea of objectivity.
> (in The time of the world picture is said where Heidegger
> places philology and
> textual criticism)
> Heidegger himself has chosen von Herrmann, explicitly
> denouncing a critical edition,
> as not suiting the inner essence of his thinking. Why not start
> thinking here?
> But the editors have their own, technological, perspective,
> which is all right
> and also necessary, and a critical Heidegger edition will be
> probably inevitable,
> but it will only deliver a false idea of thoroughness in
> questions that are just
> of another nature.
> This does not mean that any text goes. But if one looks at the
> comments later made
> by Heidegger, not only to the early works, one sees that no
> word, no sentence is secure,
> and this just belongs to reading Heidegger. The place where is
> decided about the 'truth'
> of H's linguistic utterances, is not truth as rightness, but
> truth as openness, it's not
> carried by subjectivity (or, which is the same, objectivity) ,
> but by Dasein, which
> is an opening up. Essentially without guarantees.
>
> (Likewise, one tries to emasculate Hoelderlin, by pointing out
> that he used
> defective editions of the Greek authors, he translated. But
> again, not rightness
> is at stake here, but Aletheia)
>
> A lot of the Gesamtausgabe has to be taken on trust.
>
> The complete Heidegger has to be taken on trust. If not, leave him out
> and do something better. Instead, the industrial activity,
> that is aroused
> by the name 'Heidegger', betrays an insecurity that does not
> want to enter
> the daylight, but just wants to continue undisturbed its
> vulture-like activity.
> Of course, always with the best intentions.
>
>
> I suppose maybe a critical edition will appear one day, but how
> long will that be? and with the volume of material, how many volumes would
> that take up?
>
>
> Probably and happily, i won't have to live with it anymore.
>
>
>
> On another issue, it seems von Herrmann was instrumental in allowing the
> English translation of the Beitraege to appear as is, which is a fairly
> damning indication i think.
>
> ANY English translation, isolated from the original, is self-damning.
> Not because i want that, but because it just is so.
> And what if he would have protested against it? What would have been the
> reaction then? So it's just a pedagogical move: one can translate the
> Beitraege, one can read them translated, but you have to find
> out yourself
> of what use it is as such. And if - but this will be the exception - it
> brings you to learning German, a translation has not been made
> completely
> in vain.
>
> regards
>
> rene
>
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
