These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
I am only just now struggling with Heidegger. His famous "Principle of Identity" Lecture begins:
"The usual formulation of the principle of identity reads: A=A. The principle of identity is considered [by Heidegger?] the highest principle of thought. We shall try to think about this principle for a while. For we should like to find through this principle what identity is [by thinking about it].
"When thinking attempts to pursue something that has claimed its attention, it may happen that on the way it undergoes a change. It is advisable, therefore, in what follows to pay attention to the path of thought [aka stream of consciousness] rather than its content. To dwell properly upon the content would simply block the lecture."
I read the above opening words as clear evidence that the ultimate subject matter of Heidegger's work is what is inside his head, as it was for Husserl, albeit at a meta-level twice removed. His listeners are asked to look into their own minds. This is not something Aristotle, Hegel, Marx or Vygotsky's readers were ever asked.
He later ascribes this most abstract and empty of principles to "the whole of Western European thinking," from Parmenides on, which is the most outlandish performative contradiction. But if we are not to concern ourselves with the *content* of the idea but only the thought itself, then of course, the claim can stand.
This doesn't mean he's worthless; of course not. But I still think it's a very different project.
Andy Martin Packer wrote:
Andy, I'm sorry, but you are misreading phenomenology. Husserl and Heidegger had completely different ontologies, as I have tried to explain here more than once. To claim that your reading is a 'fact' is going to mislead people. Martin On Mar 11, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:: be aware of the fact that for everyone from Aristotle to Hegel to Marx to Vygotsky, "Being" and "ontological" meant one thing (or at least one related set of concepts) and from Husserl to Heidegger to Sartre and so on, it meant the exact opposite. Both sets of concepts are fine, but they have very different referents. ---------------------------_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca