>Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>>
>> in fact the dispute is much older. heidegger, as a faithful follower of
>plato
>> takes being as transcendental fullness, while nietzsche follows aristotle
>for
>> whom being was no more than a logical function
>>
>> -regards, erik
>Erik,
>I thought that Heidegger does not offer a definition of being
>(transcendence or any other) and that Heidegger criticizes N
>for attempting to circumscribe Being with what Heidegger takes
>to be N's metaphysics: Will to Power in the mode of Eternal
>Return.
Dax,
sorry for the delay, my server was down. you're right of course: heidegger
would never accept a definition of being, but he did have an idea about being
and about what wasn't being. although he assumed that being was no substance,
he still was convinced that it had a unique meaning and that this meaning was
forgotten in these degenerate times. derrida called this idea of a unique
forgotten meaning of being 'heideggers nostalgia'. i think heideggers
nostalgia can be traced to his romantic ideas about catholic mysticism, a kind
of german fascist pariottism and an obsession with ancient greece. heideggers
critism of nietzsche's will to power is, as far as i can see, based on the
assumption that the will to power is a metaphysical concept, which is
according to many experts, an overinterpretation. heidegger made it however a
matter of princple to prove that every philosopher other than himself was
erroniously engaged in metaphysics.
btw, unlike leonardo raggo, i think there is a substantial difference between
heidegger's
'gelassenheit', which he borrowed from the christian mystic eckhart and
nietzsche's 'amor
fati', which is originally stoic. 'gelassenheit' is more passive, it's
disengagement, leaving everything to god. 'amor fati' is wholeheartedly
accepting the world as it is.
-erik
--- from list nietzsche@jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---