Re: Is there any such thing as 'Being'?

[Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>]

Don't worry about your reply being 'critical' -- that is exactly what I was hoping someone would be!  After all, this forum is a place for us to share viewpoints and ideas; what use would any of that be if no-one were allowed to voice criticisms?  (If I'd wanted unreflective praise to flatter my ego, whatever the content of my post, I would have shown it to friends or relatives.  Honesty is what I was looking for.)

My dissertation contains a section on Heidegger and I decided, from the outset, that there would be no mention of 'being-in-the-world', 'Dasein', 'ready-or-present-to-handness' or 'temporality' etc...  I wanted a layman to be able to pick up my paper and, from the start, be able to understand its contents without having to lookup terms every few seconds, or learn advanced German.  Yes, there is always a difficulty when
 translating words between languages (or trying to simplify the ideas contained within them by using everyday substitute terms), but I think that if I can get the basics right without losing my audience -- or disappearing up my own arse in the process -- then progress is possible.

When I originally started out with Heidegger (which seems eons ago now), I found, to my dismay, that all the secondary literature and commentaries on his works were written in the same obscure language.  If you want to make Heidegger accessible to new students, then why on earth would you choose to re-write what he said without making allowances for the person unfamilar with his style?  (Commentators who talk about Heidegger's "Nothingness", and related concepts, are classic examples of this problem!)  Surely what is required is for students to be introduced to the basics, in 'plainer English', and then work up to more complex terminology and ideas -- via direct study of raw Heidegger
 texts?

In any case, if you consider some of Heidegger's other works: 'What is Philosophy?', 'What is called Thinking?' (and 'Parmeneides', so I am told), his style is far less obscure than that found in BT (though the subject matters covered are no less complex).  So if Heidegger himself could write with much greater clarity, then so too can those who choose to write essays or commentaries on him.

Ultimately, I have found no substitute for getting to grips with Heidegger's ideas other than to 'dive in at the deep-end' and study his texts (sans commentaries and other 'fluff') until I feel able to discuss them both in his own style and in 'plainer English'.  If you have to read a passage four, five or even six times, then so be it -- progress is often slow.  (And, as odd
 as it appears at first sight, I have found that Heidegger's language -- as opposed to that of others who have attempted to emulate his style -- has a certain quality about it that engages the reader: prompting him to reflect time and again on the text infront of him, until he too is able to see the same phenomenon that Heidegger does with equal clarity.)  No other philosopher, with the possible exception of Nietzsche, is capable of grabbing my attention and challenging my ideas and abilities like Heidegger.

Anyhow, enough (I have 'proper' work to be getting on with)!  Good luck with the exam by the way (I was the only person mad enough to answer a question on Heidegger in my class, and I did fine, so I'm sure you will too!).

--- Nick Dippie wrote:

>  ah sorry man i didn't mean to be critical really.i
>  think your post was
>  doomed from the fact that (in my email at least) a
>  lot of words were joined
>  together, which made reading it a tad confusing and
>  headache inducing.
>  
>  as far as this one goes though, i don't disagree
>  with anything you said at
>  all!it all looks good to me, and a damn sight
>  clearer than either of us
>  were last time. the only thing i would say is that
>  whilst i admire your
>  aims in trying to explain it without any of
>  Heidegger's confusing
>  terminology, for someone who knows nothing about it,
>  i'm not convinced its
>  actually possible! so much rides on his definitions
>  and terms that whilst
>  it can be simplified, i don't think it can be
>  totally broken down into
>  clear english.although as someone with an exam on
>  this next
>  week, i have to
>  say that i really wish that it could be!never did i
>  think i'd engage with a
>  philosopher who makes kant look easy....
>  
>  nick

---

Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.