Well put! So what I have to say below is not really about Heidegger. It is about "intelligence" and other diversions and anagrams.
I think if we can talk about the novels of Hammet or Chandler or the movies made from Cain's stories we would have much more fun and learn much more. Why don't we write a book of philosophy? Let me suggest a title - "Law, Death, Capitalism and the Hard-Boiled Novel." I would like to throw Jim Thompson and Charles Willeford into the mix. Yes, I do think of these writers as contributing something "intelligent" to the rest of us.
Intelligence as Game Playing: Perhaps one problem I have is with the whole idea of genius and originality. (Very few of us have anything "original" to say. I certainly don't. And "genius" outside of the arts is exceedingly rare.) People can be intelligent without actually contributing anything of intelligence to society. I know this for myself. I was quite intelligent as a chess player and as a horse player, once upon a time, but those were only games and calculations. Similarly, I think the likes of Heidegger and Derrida, have read a lot and they play intelligent games (in fact create rules for intellectual games) that other people apparently want to attempt to play. But that doesn't mean I think that the games they have invented, and have convinced others to play, should be mapped onto the world of politics, literature, and everyday life. In fact I think it is harmful to do so. (This is not a Wittgensteinian critique, only an analogy.) Today the idea of genius is mostly an artifact of our star-culture. (An opinion a Heideggerian can agree with.) The elevation of intellectuals to star-status is something that should be fought against. Nietzsche's style may be good for this project.
So Heidegger was intelligent but it was an itelligence that he concentrated on inventing obtuse ontological crossword puzzels. (Actually, the crossword puzzle analogy is close to literally true for Derrida.)
I think Schmitt has important things to
> say, some of which may be true;
Let's not get into Schmitt! Or perhaps some other time. And as long as we are on the subject, it is hard for me to look at people such as Agamben as anything but a hoax. Oh well.
I do not understand why you feel
> compelled to keep harping (really without much
> argument) on a guy whose ideas you think are trivial,
> banal, or uninterestingly wicked, or maybe all three.
> Give it a rest.
>
Well I could complete the argument-analysis about Heidegger and the Ontology of Death, if you like, but I decided that I would write it up for my weblog. There are about 7 or 8 more points. I could trace some of Heidegger's notions about ontology, art and technology in "The Origins of Art" or in "The Question of Technology". These are mostly the essays I am referring to. But again these are longer essays. Besides, Ted and Chris have actually been providing the evidence for my comments.
But Heidegger is thrust upon us. And some of the issues matter to how one decides what needs changing in the world and if there can be any change at all. The strange elitist versions of their "anti-science" attitudes, their elevation of metaphorical violence over violence that takes place in the real world (as if I should ignore the sticks and stones and concentrate my time on the names that "cause" violence), and the general retreat from political and social activism by potentially left intellectuals is what I am opposing. I am a utopian. I believe left intellectuals should be participating in organizing, learning, and educating in a way that connects with the rest of us Often retreat from "the multitude" (to use another fad-concept) is packaged in a Heideggerian or post-modern context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060514/415703dc/attachment.htm>