Heidegger ...
My problem with Heidegger is not that he is wrong, but that he can't be wrong. ... or right. In fact, my problem with Heidegger is not even with Heidegger, but with metaphysics in general. The terms "right" and "wrong" simply do not apply to metaphysical frameworks, they are terms that apply only within the accepted belief system.
My problem with Heidegger is not even with his statements. They are fine statements as far as poetry goes, and i like poetry. But poetry is neither right nor wrong, it is aesthetic. Heidegger is aesthetic at times, usually, though, he is just wordy ... and if i'm going to endure wordiness for the sake of verbal aesthetics i am going to read Proust.
It may be the case that no branch of philosophy can be right or wrong, that it is all poetry, albeit mostly very poor poetry. I accept that as an open question. But i know metaphysics (and any bordering epistemology) certainly does not qualify.
Right and wrong? ... these terms need not have any relation to an ultimate truth. They are meaningful in language whether or not there is an ultimate, or even very many relative, truths, perhaps even if there are none.
This is "cat" spelled right. This is "cath" spelled wrong. Purely normative, but the words (right and wrong) are still meaningful. Nothing in Heidegger's ontologies are similar.
The same can be said of Descartes' famous dictums, but Descartes also wrote other tracts, all of which were wrong.
(Newton has freed us. All praise Newton.)
My problem with Heidegger is not even with his statements. They are fine statements as far as poetry goes, and i like poetry. But poetry is neither right nor wrong, it is aesthetic. Heidegger is aesthetic at times, usually, though, he is just wordy ... and if i'm going to endure wordiness for the sake of verbal aesthetics i am going to read Proust.
It may be the case that no branch of philosophy can be right or wrong, that it is all poetry, albeit mostly very poor poetry. I accept that as an open question. But i know metaphysics (and any bordering epistemology) certainly does not qualify.
Right and wrong? ... these terms need not have any relation to an ultimate truth. They are meaningful in language whether or not there is an ultimate, or even very many relative, truths, perhaps even if there are none.
This is "cat" spelled right. This is "cath" spelled wrong. Purely normative, but the words (right and wrong) are still meaningful. Nothing in Heidegger's ontologies are similar.
The same can be said of Descartes' famous dictums, but Descartes also wrote other tracts, all of which were wrong.
(Newton has freed us. All praise Newton.)
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 7:02 PM
1 Comments:
Perhaps this overlaps with your ideas...I dunno.
My problem with Heidegger is that he doesn't engage politics. (My problem with Sartre is that he engages politics too much).
Politics is not a question of metaphysics; but one of emotion, normativity, and langauge.
Post a Comment
<< Home