Phil
> the ‘natural attitude’ (die natürliche Einstellung)
Phil
Seán:
I am moved by what you wrote.Can we agree that the Heidegger’s character is not a matter for our inquiry?
This may be difficult since some of you are interested in Edith as a person here. That is, her personal spiritual development as it relates to her philosophy seems to be central to your and Phil’s interests
If we can’t separate Edith’s philosophical ideas from her spiritual development, then arguably we can’t or shouldn’t separate any philosopher’s ideas from her or his other personal developments.
If we can’t make the separation, what do we do when we find some of their ideas uninteresting, insufficient, unjustifiable, or nonsense? Or dangerous? There are plenty of philosophers who supported or justified totalitarian or repressive regimes.
Is there some kind of intellectual holism in which a part of a person’s belief system is understood to exert an effect on the whole?Or where a proper understanding of a philosopher is deemed impossible until we understand the totality of her system?
I am proceeding with my Edith studies under the assumption that I do not need to explore her theism, her spiritual life, and so on.Her biography is compelling, moving, and tragic.I can’t ignore it, obviously.
(An irreverent idea crossed my mind just now. I just imagined a two character play. Edith Stein and Hannah Arendt.Imagine them meeting!Hannah’s story is an amazing one, too. It lacks the heroic tragedy and redemption of Edith’s, to be sure. No one could say Saint Hannah! But — passion, mystery, conflict, betrayal, loyalty, — did I say passion?)
Sorry, Buddy, but you pushed a button or I did or something. "We are all beings-with others" - WOW. So let's exterminate 6 million of those others and philosophise about their beings-in-absence."Solicitude"??? Guten abend, fraulein Stein. Here is a gas chamber for you.You know I'm into anniversaries just now, so let me rant and rave...Seán
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Dan Bloom <d...@djbloom.com> wrote:
Seán:
=
Phil:I don’t entirely agree.But I don’t think we are any of us can settle this here when the world of philosophers still is mashing this around.You err if you think Heidegger’s “authenticity” is an ethical consideration in any usual sense of the word. And he never used the terms “good or bad faith.”In Heidegger’s reply to Sartre in his famous “Letter on Humanism,” Heidegger was explicit. He said his and all philosophy has its limits. He never proposed an ethical way of living or a guide for proper choice-ful behavior.We can understand that to mean that authenticity and resoluteness are existential conditions for choice and not directions for choice.Unfortunately, one can make authentic choices among possibilities that are repugnant. This may be so even when one is fully engaged with others. This is a tragedy, of course. One can authentically choose to be an heroic fighter for either side in a war.There is evidence that Heidegger opposed the Nazis as the regime continued in its brutality. There is evidence that he did it too secretly.But Heidegger the person is not relevant to Heidegger the philosopher who rekindled ontology as a serious concern. I will try to scan a quote from Levinas that addresses this and attach it to this discussion.Dan
On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Philip Brownell wrote:
=
Dear Sylvia,I think you missed the point of the leaven metaphor. It was not meaning that the leaven spoils the "higher thoughts." The leaven in this case is his corrupting his own values, leading to an inauthentic self and bad faith. These are not inconsequential, but they go to the person of Heidegger and not necessarily to his thought. To me, it's not a simple question. Where do person and person's thought diverge such that the body of thought can really be understood apart from understanding the person? Why do we insist on contextualizing any of these people, like Stein, by considering their influences? No, I think you are too glib and quick in granting grace to Heidegger.You might enjoy reading Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas. He describes the Germany in which Hitler came to power and Bonhoeffer's family (quite aristocratic and privileged) and how Bonhoeffer developed a moral compass in the midst of it that did NOT succumb to the Fuher Principle.
Phil
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:24 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Phil,I don't think the leaven in the lump metaphor is an apt one in the case of Heidegger. Nor do I think it is always, or even primarily, important to understand the life of the thinker to understand AND to evaluate that thinker's thought. I think it often happens that people are able to think higher thoughts than they are able to live. St. Paul makes this point in very strong terms, and I think most of us affirm higher ideals than we can and do consistently manifest in our behavior.And speaking of context in connection with Heidegger's support of National Socialism, I think it's important to understand how devastated Germany was in the 20's, economically and in many other ways. The reason Hitler got such a foothold in the first place was because of the hopelessness of the situation. He talked like a savior, and in such a context desperate people are psychologically like the drowning man who is so irrational as even to drown a person who tries to save him. I can imagine how people believed in Hitler when he came to power. Put that together with the ancient anti-Semitism in Germany--even in its churches--and Germany was ripe for the sweeping attack on the Jews, and the violent assertion that "We Germans are no longer on the bottom--we are, in fact, the master race! I imagine Heidegger saw Hitler as a savior, as did so many others. And no doubt going along with the regime also bespeaks personal cowardice and ruthless ambition on Heidegger's part. Yet none of that takes away from the fact that he has opened the door to a more purified approach to talking about what-is, more experience-near, and with an openness to the development of an ethics. I don't think his personal failure "infects" his philosophical thought, and this is why I do not agree with the leaven metaphor. Even Hitler could add two and two and come up with four!
Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 1:06:14 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philbr...@logic.bm writes:
=
Sylvia,Thank you.I would greatly appreciate it if you could be as specific in future also.Summer greetings,
Seán
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM, <CROC...@aol.com> wrote:
Sean,I was referring to the exchanges between you and Dan like the following. That's why I addressed it to the two of you. I despise what the Nazis did as much as you do, and I'm horrified that Heidegger ever connected himself with them. And I still admire his writings. Anyone that can't get past his personal failings, and so doesn't appreciate his contribution, I believe is missing out on some writings that are of immense value.
SylviaIn a message dated 7/19/2010 1:29:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sean...@gmail.com writes:Sorry, Buddy, but you pushed a button or I did or something. "We are all beings-with others" - WOW. So let's exterminate 6 million of those others and philosophise about their beings-in-absence."Solicitude"??? Guten abend, fraulein Stein. Here is a gas chamber for you.
Sylvia
In a message dated 7/18/2010 3:27:17 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sean...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, Buddy, but you pushed a button or I did or something. "We are all beings-with others" - WOW. So let's exterminate 6 million of those others and philosophise about their beings-in-absence."Solicitude"??? Guten abend, fraulein Stein. Here is a gas chamber for you.
You know I'm into anniversaries just now, so let me rant and rave...Seán
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Dan Bloom <d...@djbloom.com> wrote:
Seán:From what I can tell, the best Heidegger can offer you in this regard is this.We are all beings-with others. Others are always already there. Period. We are bound to one another as common beings in a common relational home. We have a common history. We are also with one another by virtue of a common mood, atmosphere, dispossedness.Heidegger refers to our feelingful relation to one another as authentic solicitude. That is a kind of grounded human concern. But he doesn’t explore that much. It is in B and T, though. Bob Stolorow points this out.So he offers a philosophy that is the foundation, the basis, for intersubjectivity — but not intersubjectivity itself. The subject is not Dasein. Dasein is the existential being that is the possibility for the human subject.But Heidegger does not have either a morality or an interpersonal ethics. That is a limitation in his philosophy pointed out by Stein and later by Levinas.(There is an interesting book I’ve been reading. It examines 3 possible kinds of ethics in Heidegger. The story continues.)Heidegger acknowledged it himself. He said he didn’t intend for it to be there.But Heideggerians have worked this out. Levinas, for example.Dan
On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Sean Gaffney wrote:
Phil,Yes. And yes again. I have long contended that our profession as psychotherapists, engaged and paid by patients/clients for a professional service needs much more attention in our literature than it gets. My therapy clients, my supervisees, my consultancy clients are not paying me to philosophise on their or on my own behalf.I see our work certainly as informed by our knowledge - psychology for some, philosophy for others, spirituality for others - though always within the context of our professional service. My clients are at least deserving of an expectation that my being me is supportive of them, and, basically, worth their money.
My sense is that Edith's essential humanism - a typical Jewish competence - will reach through her methodology and touch the other...Lewin got close to this, Buber both lost and found the other in God, Levinas I don't know enough about (yet!), I doubt Husserl's interest other than as a hypothetical abstraction, and Heidegger lost the plot when he gave his support to an ethnic cleansing industry...so I'm pinning my hopes on Edith...and/or me in the last resort.
Phil,
I find your response missing the mark. I fully understand the leaven metaphor as I you applied it to what I had written, which I continue to reject.
Now let's talk as two Christians. We both know about sin, and it's true that being sinners no aspect of our individual being/existence escapes the effects of sin--how and what we think, how we feel, how we act, the things that turn us on and turn us off (sometimes secrectly and ashamedly). Yes, Heidegger was a big-time sinner, and his affirmation and affiliation with the Nazis shows it, being driven by faulty thinking, selfish ambition, and moral cowardice even after he became critical of Nazi cruelty. But his approach to philosophical terminology and philosophizing is a lasting contribution to world philosophical thought, and it will continue to resonate and suggest new approachs for centuries to come. what in particular he thought is limited in its scope, yet suggestive in its implications. His personal failings do not constitute a growing blight on his philosophical thoughts and writings.
=
Sylvia:Okey-dokey.I confess to being more or less an orthodox Heideggerian these days. I am studying him closely. It is also how I’ve been taught to read him. Critchley encouraged us to read Heidegger as inphenomenological traditon and to try to understand B and T as his response to Husserl. He also encouraged us to understand it backwards, that is, to read Div I in terms of Div II. This is also the perspective of another Heidegger scholar, Reiner Schürman, formerly of The New School. This gives a tight understanding of the text.This approach enables me to appreciate Levinas’s understanding of him, for example. I don’t think we can understand Totality and Infinity unless we understand that Heidegger was Levinas’s interlocutor.Letter on Humanism was nothing more than a response to Sartre? Nothing more than Heidegger’s rejection of Sartre’s existentialism?Hmm. I don’t agree. It is more than that.I’ve read some of his Zollikon Seminars and indeed his comments on intersubjectivity are interesting. These are just about the last things he contributed. There is hardly anything spiritual in these seminars.But I am not saying Heidegger can’t be read as a spiritual philosopher. Ernst Cassirer accused him of asking theological questions but refusing to give theological answers.love,
Dan
On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:39 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Hi Dan,No, I don't think we're really at odds, yet it sometimes appears that you delimit Heidegger too strongly! what I mean is, I will "do violence" to Heidegger as I read him backwards from his later writings. The essay on truth is very suggestive of a deeply spiritual and Buberian understanding of interpersonal relationships, as well as how to understand authenticity for an individual. Anyway, I agree that he denied the ethical interpretation of key terms in his thought, and I can hardly imagine that he was unaware of them. And, as I said, I believe he was deadset against being categoried as an existentialist. Sartre also did ontology, but he was clearly political and ethical in his primary interest; Heidegger didn't want to be thrown in with him, as nothing more than that.Love, Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 2:25:46 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, d...@djbloom.com writes:
Sylvia:We are talking about different things. Aren’t we?I am referring precisely to Being and Time.I’ve read Lawrence Vogel’s (The Fragile We) on ethics in B and T and discussed authentic solicitude with Bob Stolorow. So I know that there are different constructions — but within the limits I described in my email.I know that Dasein is inclusive of Dasein-mit and fundamental ontology is social and historical.So authentic choosing is never a deworlded act.Heidegger abandoned existence after B and T and paid attention to Being. I think you know that. Many say that his lack of a moral compass followed this turn. I don’t know about that.Heidegger rejected philosophy, praised “thinking,” lectured on Parmenides, Hölderlin, Heraklitus, and, famously, Nietzsche. In short, he became more and more poetic.He did find a kind of ethics, though. He strongly lamented technology’s interruption of the presenting of Being. (I believe I am using the right term here.)This later Heidegger is not one who speaks to me. But I really haven’t studied him much.One can construe philosophers in many ways!Heidegger was famous for this.In his infamous study of Kant, he told us that the proper way to read philosophical texts is to DO VIOLENCE TO THEM. He really said that.So, construe away!!!Simon Critchley said to us, “How dare philosopher know what they meant by what they wrote?”So, let’s construe away!I don’t think we are miscommunicating. Are we?Love,
Dan
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:59 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Hi Dan,I think we keep on miscommunicating on this point. I agree that Heidegger did not construe his concept of authenticity in any moral/ethical sense. Yet it is open to such a construction. I have taken it in that direction in my book (Essay 7 on living well as an individual). The great strength of Heidegger, in my opinion, is the fecundity of his thought. His vision was limited, but he laid the foundations--not only in B and T but in his later works--for existential truth and living, by which I mean what is involved in living well as a person and as a citizen. He did not do this, but it can be done, and this can be accompanied by the clear statement that this constructivist path was suggested by Heidegger's thought, but not developed by him, certainly not in B and T.When I have read Heidegger I have felt stimulated to think in ways that felt rich and true to me. His rigid denials only indicate his own blind spots. Or perhaps he did not want to be dismissed as just another existentialist! He was a more serious fundamental thinker than that.Love, Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 1:38:53 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, d...@djbloom.com writes:
Phil:I don’t entirely agree.But I don’t think we are any of us can settle this here when the world of philosophers still is mashing this around.You err if you think Heidegger’s “authenticity” is an ethical consideration in any usual sense of the word. And he never used the terms “good or bad faith.”In Heidegger’s reply to Sartre in his famous “Letter on Humanism,” Heidegger was explicit. He said his and all philosophy has its limits. He never proposed an ethical way of living or a guide for proper choice-ful behavior.We can understand that to mean that authenticity and resoluteness are existential conditions for choice and not directions for choice.Unfortunately, one can make authentic choices among possibilities that are repugnant. This may be so even when one is fully engaged with others. This is a tragedy, of course. One can authentically choose to be an heroic fighter for either side in a war.There is evidence that Heidegger opposed the Nazis as the regime continued in its brutality. There is evidence that he did it too secretly.But Heidegger the person is not relevant to Heidegger the philosopher who rekindled ontology as a serious concern. I will try to scan a quote from Levinas that addresses this and attach it to this discussion.
Dan
On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Philip Brownell wrote:
Hi Sylvia,Good to see you jump in here. I have been stimulated by the difficulty that Heidegger presents, and by the sense that we understand Stein, or Buber, or anybody really by the context of their lives and the narrative that exhibits their choices. That is, a body of work is often best understood against the background of who the person is who produced it. I don't think this is as simple as part for whole error (mistaking the whole forest for a blight in one part of it). Rather, as Seán (I think it was) illustrated in contrasting what I might call a repentant attitude with Heidegger's, I think there is a quality of character in the mix that for some gives the lie to Heidegger's values statements. What we come away with is not feeling that the values were wrong, but that the person was false. Authenticity? Good faith/bad faith? These are relevant. Instead of the forest for the trees metaphor, I am reminded of another one: a little leven affects the whole loaf.
Phil
===
Can a person authentically choose to have an abortion?
Can one authentically choose to be a soldier in an army at war with us?Euthanasia? Can this be an authentic choice?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:03 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Phil,If you want me to take what you say here, y ou'll have to point to where you think his bad character tained his thought. If it's just an abstract assertion without being pinned to where you think his thought went astray, then point to that. Just say he was an inauthentic human being doesn't ground what you say, especially since you are using the term "inauthentic" in a way that he explicitly says he does not mean. I happen to agree with how you are using the term, and I agree that as a person and as a citizen his embrace of Hitler and Nazism was inauthentic. But please point to specific ways in which the leaven moved from his inauthenticity into his thought.
Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 3:05:47 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philbr...@logic.bm writes:
Dear Sylvia,
Please find response in line:
On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:14 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Phil,I find your response missing the mark. I fully understand the leaven metaphor as I you applied it to what I had written, which I continue to reject.Phil: I find that dismissive. My sense is that you don't understand what I was saying, and so merely claiming that you do doesn't work for me. It doesn't HAVE to work for me, but that's what happens when I read your response up to this point.
Now let's talk as two Christians. We both know about sin, and it's true that being sinners no aspect of our individual being/existence escapes the effects of sin--how and what we think, how we feel, how we act, the things that turn us on and turn us off (sometimes secrectly and ashamedly). Yes, Heidegger was a big-time sinner, and his affirmation and affiliation with the Nazis shows it, being driven by faulty thinking, selfish ambition, and moral cowardice even after he became critical of Nazi cruelty. But his approach to philosophical terminology and philosophizing is a lasting contribution to world philosophical thought, and it will continue to resonate and suggest new approachs for centuries to come. what in particular he thought is limited in its scope, yet suggestive in its implications. His personal failings do not constitute a growing blight on his philosophical thoughts and writings.Phil: And this is where you have not really seemed to understand what I was saying. You continue to beat this idea that the blight is on his philosophical writings. It might be, but I'm not claiming that it is. I am wondering about the relationship between who one is and what one says. My real assertion is that he was inauthentic and exhibited bad faith. He cheated himself and others, and yes, he sinned. As a sinner, he can be forgiven. However, one does not fudge on the nature of the sin; one hates the sin and forgives the sinner. Right? In order to really hate the sin, one must comprehend its nature. There is such a thing as premature forgiveness.
To the extent that he praises the Nazis and throws in his lot with them, damn all that! If and when we find enslaving and dehumanizing thoughts in his writings, we will throw them aside; but I do not know of any at this point. Personally he was an apparently unrepentant sinner--although we do not and cannot know that that was the case. Whether he repented or not is between Heidegger and God. I imagine St. Paul's saying "The good I want to do, I do not do, and the evil that I do not want to do, I do. And there is no health in me," may well have resonated with Heidegger, familiar as he was with the Bible.
Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 1:48:50 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philbr...@logic.bm writes:
Dear Sylvia,I think you missed the point of the leaven metaphor. It was not meaning that the leaven spoils the "higher thoughts." The leaven in this case is his corrupting his own values, leading to an inauthentic self and bad faith. These are not inconsequential, but they go to the person of Heidegger and not necessarily to his thought. To me, it's not a simple question. Where do person and person's thought diverge such that the body of thought can really be understood apart from understanding the person? Why do we insist on contextualizing any of these people, like Stein, by considering their influences? No, I think you are too glib and quick in granting grace to Heidegger.You might enjoy reading Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas. He describes the Germany in which Hitler came to power and Bonhoeffer's family (quite aristocratic and privileged) and how Bonhoeffer developed a moral compass in the midst of it that did NOT succumb to the Fuher Principle.
Phil
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:24 PM, CROC...@aol.com wrote:
Phil,I don't think the leaven in the lump metaphor is an apt one in the case of Heidegger. Nor do I think it is always, or even primarily, important to understand the life of the thinker to understand AND to evaluate that thinker's thought. I think it often happens that people are able to think higher thoughts than they are able to live. St. Paul makes this point in very strong terms, and I think most of us affirm higher ideals than we can and do consistently manifest in our behavior.And speaking of context in connection with Heidegger's support of National Socialism, I think it's important to understand how devastated Germany was in the 20's, economically and in many other ways. The reason Hitler got such a foothold in the first place was because of the hopelessness of the situation. He talked like a savior, and in such a context desperate people are psychologically like the drowning man who is so irrational as even to drown a person who tries to save him. I can imagine how people believed in Hitler when he came to power. Put that together with the ancient anti-Semitism in Germany--even in its churches--and Germany was ripe for the sweeping attack on the Jews, and the violent assertion that "We Germans are no longer on the bottom--we are, in fact, the master race! I imagine Heidegger saw Hitler as a savior, as did so many others. And no doubt going along with the regime also bespeaks personal cowardice and ruthless ambition on Heidegger's part. Yet none of that takes away from the fact that he has opened the door to a more purified approach to talking about what-is, more experience-near, and with an openness to the development of an ethics. I don't think his personal failure "infects" his philosophical thought, and this is why I do not agree with the leaven metaphor. Even Hitler could add two and two and come up with four!
Sylvia
In a message dated 7/19/2010 1:06:14 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philbr...@logic.bm writes:
===
You aren’t restricted to his definition. None of us is.“Authenticity” was Kierkegaard’s word anyway.Was Heidegger THE philosopher of authenticity? I think so, but the reason why is complicated since it involves how he linked authenticity into his “fundamental ontology” and so on.On his own terms, though, he certainly wasn’t authentic when he mimed the party line. He was a coward. And an opportunist. When he obeyed the racial laws even though he was against racial anti-Semitism, he was entirely inauthentic.But he was authentic when he spoke in favor of what he believed was true about the National Socialists. This was in the early days. He fell more and more silent during the 1930’s.I condemn him for that. I judge him for that.
On Jul 19, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Philip Brownell wrote:
I see what you are saying. Perhaps there is another way of looking at it. I am not as well-versed in Heidegger as you, and perhaps I never will be. I do not want to argue for or against him per se. Since when am I restricted to HIS definition of authenticity? And I don't think he is the only philosopher of authenticity. Please explain to me how he was consistent with himself (and his take on "chatter") if he mimed the Nazi "speaking points?"
Phil
On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Dan Bloom wrote:
To beat a dead horse:
Phil,By his definition of authenticity, he was authentic in his support of National Socialism.His choice was grounded in his sense of historicity and people, that is, community.He withdrew his commitment when he saw that the party lost its original goals. This is documented in his biography. But he remained a party member, as did many cowardly people.He was inauthentic in his lying about it after the war.He was authentic when he refused to deny it when it was disclosed.I am not prepared to say that his opportunistic conduct as an academic was all that different for many other academics around the world in many other times and places. His problem was that he wore a swastika pin. (His Rectorship address was contemptible, though.)If you want to use other definitions of authenticity when talking about the philosopher of authenticity, I think you need to define your word fully.Dan
On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Philip Brownell wrote:
My real assertion is that he was inauthentic and exhibited bad faith. He cheated himself and others, and yes, he sinned.
=
Phil
=
Okay... BTW do you recall this is an Edith Stein study group? Here's a tid bit: in the Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty Edith Stein is referenced pages 116-122 in a chapter on "Motives, Reasons, and Causes."
Phil
On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Dan Bloom wrote:
=
Husserl’s use of transcendence and immanence might be interesting to consider here, too. I suspect it is VERY different from Stein’s.
I’ll look into M/P.
I’m afraid that once I open that volume I’ll get lost.
Des Kennedy and I had dinner in Phillie. Our purpose was to have it out about Heidegger and M/P. I think we disagreed about thrownnes. We had a wonderful time. Nothing was settled except the deepening of our friendship.
I love those Jesuits!!!
Phil
The books came in. I highly recommend Life in a Jewish Family, her autobiography. It is extensive, and with copious notes that are priceless, showing the world in which she lived and the people influential to her life.
Phil
It lost it. I have to buy a second copy. Grrr.
I have one final place to look for it. This weekend.