Oz The Saturday Paper reviews
Julia Holter's Have You In My Wilderness
She said, “All the people run from the horizon”
This is, I believe, a reference to the horizons of temporality and consciousness spoken about by Heidegger in Sein und Zeit. It is non-being, or death, that lies beyond the horizon. Eric Gerlach explains Heidegger’s concept this way: “One cannot run from the horizon, as it always remains with us.” This isn’t exactly standard-issue pop material.
Still waiting for the vinyl to arrive. Her song about the sculptures in Marienbad is a favorite 'round here.
This is not “Hegel for Dummies”, nor does this new translation make Heidegger’s interpretations of Hegel easier to comprehend. In fact, in their introduction, the translators themselves concede that much of Heidegger’s original text is “fragmentary and much less polished than many of his other works.” In places the introduction even reads like the translators’ apology for the incomprehensibility of much of the book, perhaps wishing to absolve themselves of responsibility for the readability of the text.
Some of the lesser Gesamtausgabe volumes have this, it's a list of jottings not a book, problem. If you are interested in Hegel read Hegel, or the secondary lit. Heidegger's only interested in teasing his understanding out of Hegel.
Pieces of the text will literally be Greek to readers, as the text uses not foreign words but characters from foreign alphabets, as well. The Latin, Greek, and German to English translations are as epic in scope as a Gutenberg bible reading.
At this point (first translation), specialists want to get as close to what Heidegger wrote, as possible. Later, the consensus interpretations will present themselves.
There's a response
to Thomas Sheehan's article "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?
" in Philosophy Today
, from François Rastier.
Heidegger having been compromised, to say the least, Dr. Sheehan thinks
he can defend him by attacking the reputation of Emmanuel Faye, and by thus
jeopardizing his honor.
In so far as I can tell, Rastier's argument can be summed up with: "Faye says Heidegger was Nazi, Sheehan says he wasn't. Everyone knows Faye is right", which is absurd. Heidegger's Nazism has been officially documented since the denazification committee published its report in 1945. Over the decades Sheehan has published many articles critical of Heidegger's Nazism. Sheehan's point is that Faye has added nothing to our understanding of Heidegger, much of Faye's interpretation of Heidegger is wrong (doesn't correspond with what Heidegger wrote or meant), and Faye has altered some texts to support his point of view. This response is an ad hominem attack on Sheehan that never engages with "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?".
The open letter is signed by 21 academics. I recognize three names. Sidonie Kellerer I believe studied under Faye. Richard Wolin is a historian, not a philosopher. Johannes Fritsche is the author of Historical Destiny and National Socialism in Heidegger's
Being and Time; it's on my list, but I'm into Andrew Mitchell's The Fourfold
We append to the present letter a short bibliography intended to enable the readers
of Philosophy Today to reach their own conclusions.
Gosh, papers by the same people who signed the letter. They will need to get some "name" Heideggerians on board, or respond to the items in "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?", to get any traction.
[Some browsers (UC, Chrome) can't display response PDF. Try Firefox, Edge, or downloading PDF.]