> His first planned (never written) book was on
> Aristotle.
> That does not mean he was doing theology. I am
> reminded of one his lectures (don't remember which
> one) in which he mocks people who call him a "Catholic
> philosopher" because he quotes Aquinas.
> Really, this is my area. Until I dropped out of
> Academia in 2000, I was trained as a Heidegger
> scholar. If there is a book written on H before 2000,
> in English, I have at least skimmed it.
What's your take on Lucien Goldmann's thesis - "implicitly confirmed by Lukacs in his essay on _Heidegger 'redivivus'" that History and Class Consciouness influenced Being and Time?
Ref. "Heidegger's work is to be understood, according to Goldmann, as in large part a polemical response,'perhaps even unconscious', to Lukacs's book of 1923. The 'true' and 'false' consciouness discussed by Lukacs, became, presumably, the 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' existence in Heidegger; Lukacs's distinction between 'essence' and 'phenomenon' became Heidegger's distinction between 'ontic' and 'ontological', etc."(Ref. "From Bergson to Lukacs" in Colletti's, Marxism and Hegel)
Ulhas