Thursday, February 26, 2015

Joseph S. O'Leary posts his critique of Thomas Sheehan's Making Sense of Heidegger.
Ereignis must mean more than that “human being has been brought into its own as the open space for meaningfulness”. It is not human being that “gives time” and “gives being.” “The term bespeaks our thrown-openness as the groundless no-thing of being-in-the-world”. That is the human side of the Ereignis, but the correlative, “that beings are”, which entrusts human existence with the role of shepherd of being (and not only Platzhalter des Nichts, placeholder of nothingness) and human language with the role of house of being is “groundless no-thing” in a positive sense—the presencing of being is not to be confined to the register of a ground or a thing. I realize that I am trotting out a string of Heideggerian clichés here. Heidegger may have found these clichés tiresome himself, but they served an essential purpose in indicating clearly the coordinate of his thought (just as with Hegel’s clichés, “The real is the rational,” “The truth is the whole,” etc.). Does Sheehan’s reading allow full weight to be given to these clichés, or if it seeks to overturn them, does it provide sufficiently weighty grounds for doing so?
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version