tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8132164.post116373807173263797..comments2023-10-23T14:37:34.169-04:00Comments on pas au-delĂ : 'what matters now'Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8132164.post-1164075516958545802006-11-20T21:18:00.000-05:002006-11-20T21:18:00.000-05:00Does he claim all that? I wonder. Or could it ...<EM>Does</EM> he claim all that? I wonder. <BR/><BR/>Or could it be something entirely more modest (and more radical) - namely, that his philosophy has tried to overcome "<EM>a</EM> position of subjectivity," (precisely, the Subject of modernity, "made absolute"). <BR/><BR/>That wondered...you may still very well be right.Matt Christiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336678358977647388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8132164.post-1164009628526269812006-11-20T03:00:00.000-05:002006-11-20T03:00:00.000-05:00I certainly wouldn't claim his thought was reducib...I certainly wouldn't claim his thought was reducible to a social mission with a certain name-- to do so would require a carelessness of reading so large as to be, well, normative.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I do not take Heidegger at his word in his claim that his philosophy has (unequivocally) overcome subjectivity, and therefore is completely uncontaminated by the social.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8132164.post-1163904066537824072006-11-18T21:41:00.000-05:002006-11-18T21:41:00.000-05:00You have a point about the unspoken thing. As fo...You have a point about the unspoken thing. <BR/> <BR/>As for the charge of unconscious and unflattering richness (to say the least), you're right that Heidegger does not seem, here, to much recognize it. But then, there's some evidence he never did. <BR/><BR/>If you tried to accuse his thought of being reducible to a social mission with a certain name, however, then the question surely becomes a little difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8132164.post-1163777493585084882006-11-17T10:31:00.000-05:002006-11-17T10:31:00.000-05:00Perhaps it's a small point, but I'm not sure I'd s...Perhaps it's a small point, but I'm not sure I'd say that Heidegger's ghost <I>explains</I> the paradox of Marx's famous statement, as much as <I>demonstrates</I> it through his (perhaps intentional) misreading.<BR/><BR/>It's clear, I believe, to most of those citing Thesis XI (and to all of those following it) that Marx is not attempting to "speak decisively against philosophy", and that the allegedly "unspoken" presupposition of a "demand for philosophy" is precisely Marx's point-- in other words, that an uncritical interpretation of the world is not sufficient.<BR/><BR/>For Heidegger's ghost to deny that <I>his</I> philosophy (much less all philosophy) lacks a social mission appears to be an exercise in plausible deniability. That he chooses to invoke the specter of Marx in order to do so is rich beyond words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com