Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Newcity Art on glitchiness as presencing to hand and a Heidegger-Spinoza similarity.
Spinoza and Heidegger made similar points, illustrated with a hatchet and a hammer respectively, that a tool, subsumed in its utility, only truly becomes an object when broken—as do, by implication, our brains and bodies. At the end of Peter Greenaway’s 1985 film “A Zed And Two Noughts,” twin veterinarians obsessed with making time-lapse films of decaying animal corpses finally euthanize themselves before their automated camera—which ceases to function when the room is overrun with snails attracted to the rot. The malfunction, the glitch, breaches the thin line between the ideal, virtual form or function, and the electrified molecules comprising its material substance—and thus, new forms and functions arise.
Reading like, well, the highlights of Heidegger's Kantbuch a few months ago I noted quite a few references to Spinoza. Given your claim (and others) that MH is an atheist, ..perhaps MH's non-cartesian ontology could be read as some type of spinoza mechanisms, tho' in an odd way (ie, IMO spinoza is sort of Aristotelian, tho..importantly ..sans the "telos"--ie, Spinoza adamantly refuses any talk of "final causes")--thus Heid. is not the radical foe of modern philosophy..and science that some consider him, but actually a pal of the spinoza-sorts...?? (Kant rejects the Spinoza ...clock-world, does he not)
I have a post for next week with a personal claim that MH was never an athiest, and essentially a Catholic his whole life.

I don't know enough Spinoza to judge. I have seen a claim that Heidegger borrowed from Spinoza without acknowledging so. To the extent that MH is considered "the radical foe of modern philosophy..and science" it seems he would also have to be a foe of Spinoza.
Oh OK.

Well pro-Heideggerian Im not, but agree. I don't think Heidegger was really an atheist either. But you just said he was a few days ago (re my rants on ..Ivan Karamazov etc). Being IS transcendent for MH,and he's not a spinoza but crypto-Aristotelian of a sort(tho not...consistently and not traditionally ala Thomists, and perhaps platonic elements still sneak in).
From reading MH, I think he was an athiest, in that he didn't believe in a supernatural god that created and directed the physically universe, or gave man an ethical manual about how to behave. Other's will have their own interpretations, or their own definitions of "atheism".

I allow for transcendent athiesm. I don't think you have to be a strict materialist to not believe in God. Mathematicians are allowed in.
I don't think you have to be a strict materialist to not believe in God.

OK. Most mathematicians do believe in the "Reals", ie abstract entities, more or less --which is not exactly compatible with the usual low -grade Darwinism--but then many mathematicians..do believe in a sense (consider Leibniz..and Frege himself). But Heidegger's schema itself does not provide much in the way of axioms does it. (As Frege knew, considering MH a cousin of Husserl's dreaded psychologism)
MH's "logic" is not about axioms. MH doesn't think Frege's logic is wrong, just that axioms and such aren't the basis for a complete explanation of everything. Logic only applies within the system that defines the rules.
Well, Frege did think Husserl and his boy Heidegger were wrong, insofar that their "phenomenology" was not really capable of proofs of any sort--being neither analytical or synthetic (perhaps ..quasi synthetic)--, and tended to a sort of psychologizing--Im not saying S & Z was merely psychology--but IMO there were psychological elements to S & Z. ( angst,care, thrownesss..Dasein itself). And MH himself wanted a certain poetic perspective did he not
As I understand it, that's the analytical vs continental divide in anglo academic philosophy right.

Frege: logic is the only true philosophy, everything else is misunderstandings. MH: logic is just a specialization of philosophy of limited use.

Frege: Any explanation, if not logical, must then be psychological. MH: Psychology is just a specialized science of limited use.
Welll, Leibniz and Kant were well aware of the anal./syn. distinction (ie,loosely, logic/mathematics AND science/empirical studies,etc). Latter the analytical people--even some dreaded Birish sorts ie Ayer--picked up on it. But saying ..it's wrong because analytical philosophers used it--about like saying..well Miss Grundy must die because she's bourgeois, isn't it. I dont necessarily agree (and Quine also...cut it up likesome rat-intestines)..but... it remains a consideration
I'm not saying analytical philosophy is wrong - if there are mistakes within its domain, I'm not capable of judging - but I do think its practitioners overreach when they claim there's is the true philosophy and everyone else is mistaken.
As I understand it, that's the analytical vs continental divide in anglo academic philosophy right.

Actually that's not accurate-- wiki has some material:: Analytic/synthetic--distinction. As does Kant's First critique. It started on the Continent, at least (until Hegel sort of smashed in rationalism--including Kant's rationalist aspects)
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

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

View mobile version