+
From: michaelP <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:24:09 +0000
on 7/1/04 3:55 pm, GEVANS613@xxxxxxx at GEVANS613@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 07/01/2004 14:07:29 GMT Standard Time,
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> Michael hisses:
>
>> Robin, or Whoever, in what sense (detail and reasons please) is one
>> interested in Heidegger's thinking a member of a "cult"? Whoever said,
>> dictated that it is an "article of faith" to discuss matters philosophical,
>> "slowly"? Surely, it is just thoughtful, civilised and considerate to do
>> so...; and who said that discussing philosophical matters slowly, quietly
>> and profoundly (where possible) is anything "religious"?
>
>
> Jud:
Jud, this was clearly addressed to Robin not your good self. Can he not
speak for his self? Nonetheless, I notice you/Robin did not care to answer
the questions above, concerning culthood, the faith of slowness and the
religiosity of slow, quiet profundity. And, please, for the millionth time,
I am not a Heideggerian; I find Heidegger's thinking interesting and
inspiring, but I do not follow Heidegger (and this is especially difficult
given the absence of doctrine in Heidegger, which also makes the absurd
claim to culthood a nonsense) any more than Heraclitus, Plato, Marx, or
Nietzsche (for example): what I do love is the *entire* western tradition of
thinking that is at its best carried and brought along by such thinkers,
independently whether I happen to agree or disagree (puerile motivations
anyway, they are there to be overcome). It is *love* that mobilises me to
carry on thinking or attempting such, and many on this list do inspire me
and keep that love alive; I have to say that I am most put off and dismayed
by the exercise of hatred that is marbled in much of your prose on this
list. Is there not enough hatred in this world? Can you not fathom up some
thing other than this hateful endless tirade of repeated dogma you perform
so well? How about saying some thing positive about some thing you find
positive? The continuous piss-taking and ridicule has long ago lost its
intended effect; it does no good at all, even to the perfectly fine
anti-Heideggerian lobby you seem to lead on this list. To keep on ridiculing
without showing any sign of understanding what it is you are ridiculing,
merely makes you ridiculous (and that is sad). With your undoubted abilities
you surely can do so much better. And, you are not alone in this: the truly
awful Habermass (who was a student of Heidegger's) with all his analytical
ability has shown not an inkling of understanding when he has come to
produce a critique of Heidegger; same basically goes for Adorno (Jargon of
Authenticity) who should know better. Three thinkers who critique Heidegger
sharply and harshly, Derrida, Irigaray, Rosen, each display an
acknowledgement, respect and understanding of Heidegger's importance and
cruciality within the western tradition, even as they dismantle such
thinking; their work I find disturbing, infinitely more than yours, but it
has none of that blind hatred I find in your and your cronies' and
sympathisers' writings. Their work really gets (en)tangled with Heidegger's
and because of this, their critiques are genuinely damning and cause for
serious re-thinking; whereas your piss-takes are simply puerile and annoying
(like noise is annoying) examples of circus tomfoolery and thus make no
difference to anything wrt Heidegger and Heidegger scholarship. Your main
philosophical fault, if I may suggest, is that of not tending, not
listening, to what is presented in Heidegger's (or anyone else's) thinking;
there is no pause (or poise) of breath before launching into ridicule or
attack. This is fine in a street brawl, but not in philosophical discourse.
We all must start somewhere (have an opinion, have a belief, take a stand,
etc, = doxa), but the point of philosophical debate, to me, is to move on
past such starting points without negating them; and that is the work of
such discourse, some thing that happens when the 'conversation in the soul'
{Plato} takes place between concrete interlocutors intent upon listening not
only to one another but to what gives the interlocutors to think and speak
in the first place and beyond. It is certainly not the exchange of views
(which does not need either interlocutors or thinking). This is why I
describe your pontifications as lacking in the philosophical. This not
necessarily an insult, merely an observation. To repeat, I am not a
Heideggerian, I do not follow in any cult, I am not even a 'philosopher'
(rather a musician who loves philosophy), I am not an apologist for the
political activities of Heidegger (or anyone else), and I am certainly not
(as you accused me of recently) a lover of some nazi thug (or whatever),
etc. And finally, the previous post was addressed to your Robin, and, not to
you, oh Badman :-)
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---