Hi, Dennis.
Stick to Heidegger (the bees knees)
Oh, so
that’s whose voice you’ve been mimicking! Ah, inconstancy; thy name is Dennis!
And for whom you abandoned your once much loved “Superman”.
(:
Distilling Nietzsche gets at his message:
'Constant Overcoming'
He lived in a house with his mum and sister who badgered him and hen-pecked him mercilessly.
He would run off to cafes and write furiously designing a winning formula or archetype.
Then he would go home and say 'Yes Mum' and whine that there were no good chicks anywhere.
A couple of months of TR0 would have sorted the 'ol meaningmaker out.
You can't get at a philosopher without getting at their personal circumstances.
What they are disclosing is their 'private soliloquoy.
Their frikkin' Soap Opera.
Kierkegaard's Regina soap as a case in point.
From a quick summation of a few bits and pieces on the internet, I think he’s on the mark when he speaks about what philosophy
is. One of the first things you’ll find on looking for him in all the
right places, interestingly (: , is a critique of the often quoting of an oft quoted sentence of Marx.
The available translation goes like this:
“The question of a demand for world change is listed in the often-quoted sentence of Karl Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach and I want to quote to you exactly and read immediately; ‘The philosopher has hitherto interpreted the world. The point is to change it.’ By citation of this sentence and by following this sentence, one overlooks the fact that a world change presupposes a change of the world’s conception, and that a conception of the world can be won only by the fact that one interprets the world sufficiently. That is, Marx bases it on a completely certain world interpretation to demand his change, and thereby he himself knows that this sentence is not a sound sentence. He works the impression as if it was directly spoken against philosophy. In the second part of the sentence, just as unspoken is the philosophical claim that is presupposed.”
This is a sublime irony for the "philosopher’s proper" who proclaim Marx was not a philosopher. As here, what Heidegger is pointing out is that Marx is indeed
calling for philosophy!
This is relevant because Marx, in this quote, is talking about world
change, transformation; or, in Nietzschean terms, overcoming and undergoing!
So in your above declaration, together with the discovery that Heidegger certainly agrees with Marx’s proposition that Western philosophy has no history (no
anthropology) I found no absolutely no justifiable grounds whatsoever to your claim that Nietzche is not a philosopher proper but a mere "victim of his own circumstances". But
boy would I like to see an actual, coherent argument from you for it!
And it seems that certain critics of Heidegger would agree.
From a customer review on Amazon:
Heidegger's work on the doctrine of eternal return are practically incomparable in terms of their rigor and creativity. He has successfully placed Nietzsche's work as the total overcoming of Platonism and as the consummation of Western Metaphysics. A true tour de force of philosophical inquiry.
