Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 1:22:01 GMT -5
Paul Bishop is a chair - indeed he is the William Jacks Chair of Modern Languages at the University of Glasgow in soon to be independent Scotland. His boooks include Jung's Answer to Job: a commentary. But to-day he has written in about Heidegger that disturbing German. The diaries of the last-mentioned have recently been published under the title Überlegungen, and in one of them Heidegger alarms us with the passage "The last act of technology will be when the earth blows itself up and the humankind of to-day vanishes." "This will be no misfortune," Heidegger continues, "but rather the first purification of Being from its deepest disfiguration through the dominance of beings."
Do members agree?
But what I really wanted to draw our readers' attention to is Mr. Bishop's final remark: "These Notebooks could potentially introduce new readers to Heidegger's thought, and perhaps it is this prospect that is so unsettling to both Heidegger's enemies (for whom he is pure poison) and his friends (a kind of insider club)." This brought vividly back to me the view of one of my own early teachers, Professor Findlay of the Strand. He made very clear to me exactly that: that Heidegger both as person and as philosopher was pure poison and not to be touched by any clean-limbed Englishman's proverbial barge-pole. I think detestation is the right word: Findlay detested Heidegger.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 20, 2014 1:54:57 GMT -5
Paul Bishop is a chair - indeed he is the William Jacks Chair of Modern Languages at the University of Glasgow in soon to be independent Scotland. That last part is by no means certain; we will not know until the last vote has been counted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 8:39:37 GMT -5
Paul Bishop is a chair - indeed he is the William Jacks Chair of Modern Languages at the University of Glasgow in soon to be independent Scotland. His boooks include Jung's Answer to Job: a commentary. But to-day he has written in about Heidegger that disturbing German. The diaries of the last-mentioned have recently been published under the title Überlegungen, and in one of them Heidegger alarms us with the passage "The last act of technology will be when the earth blows itself up and the humankind of to-day vanishes." "This will be no misfortune," Heidegger continues, "but rather the first purification of Being from its deepest disfiguration through the dominance of beings." Do members agree? But what I really wanted to draw our readers' attention to is Mr. Bishop's final remark: "These Notebooks could potentially introduce new readers to Heidegger's thought, and perhaps it is this prospect that is so unsettling to both Heidegger's enemies (for whom he is pure poison) and his friends (a kind of insider club)." This brought vividly back to me the view of one of my own early teachers, Professor Findlay of the Strand. He made very clear to me exactly that: that Heidegger both as person and as philosopher was pure poison and not to be touched by any clean-limbed Englishman's proverbial barge-pole. I think detestation is the right word: Findlay detested Heidegger. I, too, am most unlikely to agree with Martin Heidegger, Sydney. According to Heidegger, man had to ask himself 'what is it to be?' and only by doing this, and standing back from absorption into objects and other distractions, could he actually exist. For Heidegger, the constant fear of death and the anxieties of life helped man to ask this central question – the mystery of life was intimately linked to the individual's confrontation and consideration of the temporary nature of their own existence. Heidegger also felt that art, like language, was important evidence of existence, something which was a real existence rather than a mere recreation of reality. He opposed technology, which he believed caused alienation, and advocated a return to an agrarian economy in which the individual had a greater role. BBC Radio 4 - IN OUR TIME'S GREATEST PHILOSOPHER VOTE - Martin Heidegger I am tempted by technology! As for Scottish independence, ahinton, will you be campaigning over coming weeks? |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 23, 2014 12:36:12 GMT -5
s for Scottish independence, ahinton, will you be campaigning over coming weeks? That might arguably seem rather pointless since, despite being a Scot, I have no entitlement to vote in the referendum as I do not live in Scotland. Many have noted that, among the various flaws in the independence argument, some of the more significant are that 1. only those living in Scotland can participate in the referendum, not Scots living anywhere else) 2. if "independent" Scots wish to retain the pound sterling as Scotland's future currency (as it is claimed a majority of those entitled to vote do), such "independence" would clearly be compromised by the fact that this currency is run by the Bank of England 3. if "independent" Scots wish to retain the British monarchy (as it is claimed a majority of those entitled to vote do), such "independence" would clearly be compromised by reason of retaining some semblance of "British rule" 4. the question of whether an "independent" Scotland will found and run its own state health service or continue to function within the current British one appears to remain open. None of the above is intended to - or indeed should - be taken as indicating that I am in favour of, or against, the "independence" of Scotland, although it may be taken to suggest that I question how "independent" that country might be after the referendum should the "yes" vote hold sway next month. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 1:45:58 GMT -5
There are two approaches to Mr. H's dilemmas.
Firstly, the Utopian. In the best of all possible worlds there would no longer exist a) any nations or b) any money or c) any monarchs. His problems will thus of their own accord evaporate. That would be the best way, but people are too stupid to work towards such a world.
So secondly, the realistic approach. One wonders does one not whether an "independent" Caledonia would have a status similar to that of the present "independent" South Hibernia. The last-mentioned in (little-known) fact shares its immigration service with G.B., but not I think its currency, nor its monarch, nor even its health service.
Nevertheless one thing I know to my cost after an experience in the early eighties is that the "independence" even of the "Irish Republic" is a simple sham. Mr. H's questions are insoluble in the short term, so I expect that the independence of any "Northern Brittania" or "Transcheviotia" will of necessity be just as much a sham, and probably every one who matters is already aware of that.
I agree that it seems very odd that Mr. H is a Scot but not a Scot when it comes to voting. A kind of invisible man what.
Whatever happens, the geographical term "British Isles" must remain, and letters to Edinburgh will I do not doubt continue to bear the address "Edinburgh, N.B."
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 24, 2014 4:24:26 GMT -5
There are two approaches to Mr. H's dilemmas. I'm not sure that everyone would necessarily describe them thus; dilemmas for some but not for others, perhaps... Firstly, the Utopian. In the best of all possible worlds there would no longer exist a) any nations or b) any money or c) any monarchs. His problems will thus of their own accord evaporate. That would be the best way, but people are too stupid to work towards such a world. Whose problems? Not mine, I hasten to assure you! You've been around this one so many times now that it's becoming like a cross between a running sore and a recurring decimal. "People" are part of the populace of "nations", so how can anyone work towards the abolition of nationhood unless and until everyone agrees this - rightly or wrongly - to be a good idea? So secondly, the realistic approach. One wonders does one not whether an "independent" Caledonia would have a status similar to that of the present "independent" South Hibernia. The last-mentioned in (little-known) fact shares its immigration service with G.B., but not I think its currency, nor its monarch, nor even its health service. What one really wonders - or rather what some do and others don't seem to bother to wonder - is what it is that realistically constitutes "independence"; my only reservations about the holding of this referendum (whatever its outcome may or should be) is that this vital matter has not been clarified in the minds of voters before it was announced. There are some monarchist Scots who wish to retain the monarchy in an "independent" Scotland and some Republican ones who do not, just as there are those on both sides of that argument who do not in any case support Scottish "independence". The same raft of opinions apply to the questions of currency, health service and the rest. The possible "independence" of Scotland is surely too important a consideration for a referendum to be held on it in such a climate of confusion and disagreement? I agree that it seems very odd that Mr. H is a Scot but not a Scot when it comes to voting. A kind of invisible man what. A kind of invisible man what is or does what? Anyway, it's really no odder than it is for any other person of voting age who has no voting rights in his/her country by reason of non-residency of that country. Whatever happens, the geographical term "British Isles" must remain, and letters to Edinburgh will I do not doubt continue to bear the address "Edinburgh, N.B." I don't see why that term should continue if there's no Britain left. If Scotland does opt for "independence", that alone won't suffice to justify its abandonment but, should Wales then hold a referendum on Welsh "independence" and as a consequence severs its ties with the rest of the "United Kingdom" (that includes "Northern Ireland" which, as you know, is neither part of "Great Britain" nor of the "British Isles"), "Northern Ireland" may find itself having to unite with the Republic (without the violence that was par for the course when IRA and the like tried to push for a united Ireland) and there will no longer be a "United Kingdom", let alone a "Britain"; the term "British Isles" will then become at best an historical memory and at worst a mere anachronism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 5:00:57 GMT -5
May I in haste venture to correct the Member on one point: the British Isles are geographical not political and will continue to include Ireland until destroyed by an earthquake or wave action? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_islesVery like the Iberian Peninsula although Iberia itself went west nigh on two thousand years ago. I agree though that they (the British Isles) will not forever drive on the left. |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 24, 2014 10:00:37 GMT -5
May I in haste venture to correct the Member on one point: the British Isles are geographical not political and will continue to include Ireland until destroyed by an earthquake or wave action? Respectfully, you may not! You can describe these islands as one group if you wish but it/they could no longer reasonably be described as "British" if and when there's no longer a "Britain" (which would be the case were Scotland and Wales to seede). I take your point on the geographical identity aspect of this but, at the same time, this provides no excuse for seeking to drag those islands into some kind of political name-gaming. I agree though that they (the British Isles) will not forever drive on the left. Leaving aside the rather obvious fact that no islands themselves drive on any side of anything, I rather fear that those people who currently drive in what is now known as Britain may well continue to have to do so on the left, against better judgement, for the foreseeable future, even if for no better reason than that the sheer cost of changing all the road signs, markings and the rest to enable people to drive on the correct side of the road will almost certainly stand in the way of what would otherwiswe be a most welcome change in driving habits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 3:11:07 GMT -5
. . . the correct side of the road . . . Why? |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 10, 2015 3:32:23 GMT -5
. . . the correct side of the road . . . Why? It just feels that way - and the majority of humans appear to be right-handed, after all... |
|
