Following his discourse on Van Gogh's shoes, Heigegger then begins a discussion of "the Greek temple" (page. 41) - which might be especially interesting to those, like Cheerskep, who have noted that truth in representation does not apply to non representational art (like William's paintings)
As I've already noted, Heidegger does not specify which Greek temple he saw "standing there in the middle of a rock cleft valley" -- and probably he's never seen one -- at least one that wasn't in ruins. (have any survived with their statuary and roofs still intact ?) But if his "Greek temple" is just his personal ideological construct - why doesn't he say so ? He then begins to walk us through his construct, and imagine all the ideas that he would like to have associated with it - including one that has an ominous tone of national socialism about it: "The all-governing expanse of this open relational context is the world of this historical people. Only from and in this expanse does the nation first return to itself in the fulfillment of its vocation" (which is somewhat fanciful, since the Greeks did not become a nation until more than 2000 years after these temples were built) The following passages must exemplify the poetry that Boris finds in this text: "Standing there, the building holds its ground against the storm raging against it, and so first makes the itself manifest in its violence" How Romantic! And, I suppose a poet is entitled to imagine that some things have come into existence just to suit his imagination. But it would be more reasonable (and historical) to say that temples, paintings, statues etc came into existence to suit the imagination of those who made them. ____________________________________________________________ Buy and sell stock online. Best online broker. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQzmiIQiYuRvhaRqwKU9zuK6 eky8nF1WIFUgTt31Lf89QH0djE4l6/
