Any thing wrong,with reading him to find out what his meaning is
on one particular thing ?He may like apple pie ,like as I do,with ice-
cream.
mando
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Luc Delannoy wrote:
reading and studying the works of a philosopher (any philosopher,
or artist) is not subscribing to the contents of what you read, or
study. i do subscribe to phenomenology and applied phenomenology
(in psychology and education in particular). i find the encounter
of hermeneutics with phenomenology fascinating (gadamer, ricoeur,
derrida etc - they all approached art) i like some husserl, in
particular the late husserl (genealogy) - and not this singular
entity business of his. i am not sure we have been talking about
ideology, we just approached lightly some philosophical concepts
like essence,techne, thingness and the like. of course some
ideologies take hostage various of these concepts. i admire m.h.
as a philosopher - without having to subscribe to all his work nor
his political and social views. yes, i like what he wrote about art
and technology. but you know what, i also like some frege and
russell, and there are not exactly phenomenologists; so i
guess i am in the picking and choosing business after all.
luc
----- Original Message ----
From: armando baeza <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:46:15 PM
Subject: Re: Heidegger and thingness
I will have to read Heidegger to clarify "thingness" in his
meaning, for myself.
mando
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
There would seem to be three possible responses to an ideology:
subscription,
rejection, and selection (i.e. picking and choosing favorable
elements).
Regarding the one under discussion (call it German Idealism?) --
here's how
our group seems to be sorting out:
*subscription: (Saul, Luc)
*rejection: (Cheerskep, Mando, Miller)
*picking and choosing: William, Boris, Kate
In response the query that began this thread, it's interesting
that even Saul
did not find M.H.'s discussion of thingness to be especially
enlightening.
(i.e. -- it's just Kantian discourse embedded in MH's
phenomenology).
I suppose there's no point in arguing matters of faith -- either
you subscribe
to Kantian discourse, or you don't -- but I do think that the
middle ground is
very problematic - since it's an essentialist program -- and if
you're
rejecting the essentials, you're rejecting the whole thing.
And there have been some rather catastrophic consequences when
branches of
this discourse, Marxism and Fascism, were adopted by totalitarian
regimes in
the previous century.
(regarding the dire consequences of German idealism in the
artworld, I suppose
that's just a matter of taste)
____________________________________________________________
Largest network of startups. Find new startup opportunities. Click
here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxPtu6gmO3e1k6Ar2WCK0ZiOF
GMEO3BY8zHeCmgBqs662rSNcn3zby/
