> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Steven E. Callihan wrote:
>
> > >Steve Callihan wrote:
> > Reading Heidegger is, of course, exquisitely torturous in its own right.
>
> A lot of editing out.
>
> I honestly don't know why anyone would read Heidegger to learn about
> Nietzsche. Yes, he wrote these long books on Nietzsche, also
> various shorter comments, but as interpretations of Nietzsche
> they are next to useless.
> Ah, but if Heidegger is what you are interested in, they are
> very interesting. They are all Heidegger, like everything
> he wrote, breathing his own unique atmosphere. "Nietzsche"
> is just one more excuse for him to write his own strange
> stuff.
Phooey. Whatever the "objective" value of Heidegger's commentaries, the
fact remains that as interpretations they are texts to be reckoned with
in Nietzschean studies. Should one read them to learn about Nietzsche?
Perhaps not. But should one read them to learn about what other
philosophers have said about Nietzsche? Absolutely. Heidegger is firmly
enconsced in the 20th century's Nietzschean polemic, whether we like that
crazy Nazi or not.
>
>
> Kelly Timothy Lynch || "Dei potentia est
> ktlynch@vex.net || ipsa ipsius essentia."
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada || Spinoza
>
>
>
> --- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---