Jordan Peterson on understanding Heidegger via Binswanger and Boss.
¶ 6:53 AM0 comments
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
In The New Criterion, Kyle Smith reviewsDeconstruction, the play.
Arendt, who fled Germany in 1933, is instantly suspicious of a detail from de Man’s past that McCarthy finds most attractive: his supposed role in the Resistance. But instead of grilling him about details of his biography, she challenges de Man from an oblique angle. The two spar about their competing interpretations of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Arendt’s former professor and lover and a onetime member of the Nazi party.
The play becomes, then, an erudite detective story, an inquiry into a man’s personality wrapped up in an in inquiry about philosophical concepts. By probing de Man’s views on Heidegger, Arendt gradually uncovers the young man’s hostility to truth, and this in turn leads to a devastating reckoning.
In NDPR, Joe Belay reviews Wanda Torres Gregory's Heidegger's Path to Language.
Heidegger's thinking of language falls into two broad, though not mutually exclusive, approaches: (1) an early "linguistic" approach, focused on language's relationship with the "meaning" of Being, and seeking to answer how language helps contain/express the "sense" (Sinn) or "meaning" (Bedeutung) of what it means to be; and (2) an "essential" approach, pursuing the question of the "essence" (Wesen) or "nature" of language (Sprache) itself. A guiding thesis in Torres Gregory's study, however, is that there is no radical "turn" (Kehre) in Heidegger's thinking of language. Rather, she argues that these two dimensions run alongside one another with the latter achieving a "slow surfacing, into explicitness over time, a move from background to foreground".
In Phenomenological Reviews, Joeri Schrijvers reviews David Farrell Krell's Phantoms of the Other: Four Generations of Derrida's Geschlecht.
[L]et us track what Heidegger takes from Trakl: there would be (there would have been or there will be: this is what separates Derrida from Heidegger) one Geschlecht, one humanity (but Heidegger will exclude all Latinate words and things. Hence, Krell and Derrida note, there ‘will never have been’ oneness in the first place), that then receives a blow, and one becomes two: this is the male-female Schlag, a sort of twofold that is not yet conflictual. The conflict and the duel, Heidegger states, comes later (like the third party in Levinas patiently waits until the ‘ethical relation’ between the other and me has been dealt with) and then the Zwiefalt becomes Zwietracht: there will be men and women, friends and foes, families and tribes against other tribes. This, Heidegger will call, with Trakl, the “decomposition [Verwesenden] of the human Geschlecht” (Heidegger 1975: 50). Not so much ‘beyond essence’ but, as it were, ‘out of essence’.
Spengler reviews Jonathan Leaf’s play “Deconstruction”.
Explaining Heidegger to a modern theater audience is something of a challenge
Arendt confesses to an affair with Heidegger as a young student and to resuming the affair after the war, after Heidegger’s Nazi activities were known to the world. “I’m not proud of it,” Leaf’s Arendt concedes. That really doesn’t suffice. Where was the motivation for a Jewish refugee to sleep with an unapologetic Nazi?
They were both philosopher kings, above the tribal identities that constrain hoi polloi.
[MH] first proposed [importing finality into philosophy] as a response to problems in philosophy of science, in keeping with the program of his teacher Husserl, who in turn was a doctoral student of the great mathematician Karl Weierstrass. That is a longer discussion; suffice it to say that Heidegger’s work of the 1920s was the last great effort to propose a philosophical system consistent with the metaphysics of the Greeks and Scholastics. Heidegger is the last important philosopher we have and might be the last ever. His achievement might be to illustrate by horrible example that the paradoxes we inherited from the Greeks simply are not susceptible to solution.