Tho an expert in Heidegger might correct me, I sense the MH of SZ was quite...anti-Hegelian (Eldred suggests as much somewhere). He protests the secularist if not political aspect of Hegelian tradition (probably including marxism in that as well) and doesn't seem interested in..."being as becoming" in the usual fratboy parlance. Temporality is of course a concern for MH, but that's not quite "History is Rational"--there are no paeans to Caesar, or german nobles, or Luther, Machiavelli etc. to be found in SZ. Hegelian thought marches forward (or ...aspires to), as does Aristotle...yet Heidegger withdraws, contemplates (tho'....he did start quoting Hegelian bon mots did he not once the NSDAP was rolling)

That's not to make a normative or qualitative judgment exactly, yet MH seems closer initially to Kierkegaardian reflections, and thus to subjectivity in a sense (tho not exactly ...theist). SK also detested the Hegelian schema.

The "turn" of post WWII MH may indicate a shift of emphasis to politics, though of a rare conceptual sort--a concern with misappled "techne" does not quite equal a thorough critique of finance capitalism.... or something.
 

i've always considered MH as opposed, or persuing a different avenue (forest path?) from Hegel. There is no absolute spirit in Heidegger, and he reads Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, who in many ways were reactions against Hegel.
 

Yes, but...one could (and I think Eldred does...) read the existentialists (ie, SK, FN, and MH, and later JPS) as conservative reactions to Hegel in a sense-- there were old hegelians (mostly conservative) and young hegelians (leftist), yet... the historical objectivity of the Hegelian--not to say the concern with the State-- allows for a sort of political focus, one might say, somewhat lacking in existentialism (that might be a drawback perhaps to the beret-wearing hipster quoting Sartrean bon mots, but...whatever).

I doubt you care for Eldred too much but his readings of Heidegger (and Hei's relation to marxist-hegelianism, really) seem rather spot on, as they say and thankfully free of the crypto-theology and obscurantism common to many continentalist-pomo writers.
 

I enjoy Eldred quite a bit because he has a deep background (Aristotle, Hegel, Greek, etc) and, unlike many contemporary philosophers, and specifically important to me, he knows math and science, and a fair amount of computation. We both started our web pages in 1995, when the only service for personal web pages (apart from running your own HTTP server on the internet) was webcom.com. That was many acquisitions ago, but we've both stuck with the same provider, and trade tips on how to get things done.
 

Mighten one not say that the Absolute Spirit in Heidegger is absent and that this absence fulfills a similar role? That said I think the move away from knowing as the key to being is the biggest and most important move Heidegger makes.

That said I don't see much Hegel in Heidegger (although there obviously is Schelling influence). Derrida is the figure I see uniting the two movements. Although I see Derrida as doing a more Heideggarian transformation of Hegel.

Others might disagree though.
 

BTW. I am in the middle of my first reading of the Froment-Meurice book you recommended. It will require several readings, but it's the best on H's poetics I have seen. Somewhere I earlier read excerpts from the F-M chapter on H's interpretation of Andenken but at the time I was not interested. Interpretations of poetry are too much like creative writing, by others as well as H. Fun to read but usually forgettable.

Initially I was wondering why when I asked about H and politics you recommended a book on his poetics. I have just gotten to the Antigone chapter, but only a few pages into it. It is also the best I have seen on H's politics so far.

I have already run across a brief F-M comment to the effect that H rescinded his early theory about the responsibility of Plato/Aristotle for the oblivion of Being. I had seen the same comment also somewhere else. Do you know if that applies as well to H's interpretation of phusis, which I understand to be that, before it became "nature," it was understood by the Greeks as an unconcealedness of Being as such? Or did he hold to that view all the way?
 

I'm in crisis mode at work dealing with bugs showing up for users of the IE9 beta, and then this afternoon my hot water heater burst. Normally I'd look up some stuff on his changing understanding of physis, but all I can suggest now is looking up whooshup on the web, that's what things did for the Greeks as physis.