tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444828253239414712.post2589410684043559310..comments2023-06-28T05:19:43.903-04:00Comments on The Notes Taken: The So-Called Report on the Conference...D. Shawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08598034752112505284noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444828253239414712.post-70674256577726257422010-06-10T07:53:07.454-04:002010-06-10T07:53:07.454-04:00http://nervouscircuits.blogspot.com
It seems to m...http://nervouscircuits.blogspot.com<br /><br />It seems to me that strict 'late-Heideggerians' would think that concrete political action as it is ordinarily conceived to be is unnecessary, as 'only a god can save us now.' I think the main problem with Heidegger is his relative prioritizing of the political, claiming that it is essentially the site in which Sein sends itself, so it is from the first understood ontologically. Also, my reading of Heidegger is that he believes the problems of philosophy to be insoluble; the proper comportment of human beings is dwelling in the question, or 'thinking without a bannister' to quote Arendt. Concrete political action seems problematic to justify in relation to such a conception (here you probably disagree with me). However, for me the issue then becomes: what if Heidegger is correct? <br /><br />I think that Gelassenheit can serve as the basis for a relatively rigourous ethical/political position, but one removed from and in contradistinction to concrete politics (note: this is not to say that I uphold it). One example is the relation between Heidegger and certain strains of deep ecology. On the other hand, I often think that adherence to Gelassenheit would ultimately result in everyone in bathrobes all the time. 'Just let beings be...man.' Did I just quote The Dude? I don't even like the film.David Tkachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919138549440713956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444828253239414712.post-65250309202482386032010-06-09T20:44:07.814-04:002010-06-09T20:44:07.814-04:00p.s. what's the address of your blog David?p.s. what's the address of your blog David?D. Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08598034752112505284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444828253239414712.post-35289325452985729362010-06-09T20:43:50.789-04:002010-06-09T20:43:50.789-04:00I think I mean that ontology is not separate from ...I think I mean that ontology is not separate from a political context. Nothing to original, on this score, unless we're talking about Heidegger's later work. There seems to be an assumption by Heidegger people that if he is retreating from obvious politics than it is not a correct orientation of thinking (note the circumlocution here) to treat his later work as quietist or obstinately disengaged and elitist.<br /><br />On the other hand, I think Badiou is pretty straight up about his commitments; the difficulty is reconciling a critique of political economy with his ontology (which is pertinent since he engages with the Marxist tradition).<br /><br />I think my problem with 'ontology' as 'first philosophy' is the impression that someone like Heidegger gives: if we could just orient our thinking toward truth, we could solve important problems.D. Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08598034752112505284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444828253239414712.post-39280441960247789642010-06-08T13:47:27.783-04:002010-06-08T13:47:27.783-04:00I think the critique of 'first philosophy'...I think the critique of 'first philosophy' is well-founded, but it turns on exactly what 'first philosophy' means, either a particular philosophical endeavour as 'highest,' which is what Heidegger conceives ontology to be, or a particular philosophical endeavour as examining with what philosophical activity must begin, which Heidegger also believes ontology to be (conceived as hermeneutic phenomenology in BT; I have no idea what to do with the later writings, as I think they constitute, or at least attempt to constitute, suggestions for an abandonment of philosophy tout court). I absolutely agree with the idea of philosophy as trying to think "totality in media res," but this seems to indicate, at least to me, that philosophy must begin with political life as the field to examine, as we are as human beings in the middle of political life from the first. Additionally, as political life always changes according to the vicissitudes of history, the idea of 'securing' a proper beginning to philosophy is disallowed. I have a paper, based on my third thesis chapter, which discusses exactly this problem in Heidegger and Strauss.<br /><br />Do you think you could explain a bit more what you mean by ontology as "strategic discourse"? Are you intimating that Heidegger had a background task which the constant return to the Seinsfrage was meant to disguise?<br /><br />I wish I had witnessed the chaos at your presentation. It's good to hear of people coming to a conference who actually wish to engage with the issues presented.<br /><br />Read/laugh/destroy my blog if you wish!David Tkachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919138549440713956noreply@blogger.com