> Hey, Jerry was going to town for several days
> ridiculing Ravi and Justin (and for a while myself,
> until I decided it wasn't worthless) for having the
> temerity to think something other than he does.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB; I read most of this thread, and I disagree that this is what Jerry
did.
>
Jerry, who seems an otherwise decent sort and amiable chap, wrote this:
> I hear a lot of contempt for the thinking of fundamentalist
> Christian's from most of my fellow intellectuals, but nothing can
> match the wilful stupidity of those who actually think that Heidegger
> has anything at all to contribute to intellectual culture.
^^^^^ CB: That was an unfortunate turn of phrase, but overall, his discussion was not _ad hominem_, and I would sharply disagree that he criticized anybody "for having the temerity to think something other than he does."
I'm thinking that there are two ( at least) opposite intellectual functions of philosophy. One is as science; the other is as art. With the latter, many people enjoy reading philosophy in the way people enjoy listening to music. If running Heidegger or Nietzche through one's mind is pleasurable, asserting that is a somewhat irrefutable claim. It's a matter of individual taste.
However, claims that so and so is the "greatest thinker of the __", sort of invites that a more objective or social standard be applied. Then when there are regular claims that a critic of the "great" thinker doesn't understand what's important or even what is being said ( even somebody who has thoroughly read the author as Jerry has), a subtle sort of arrogance starts to creep in with the critics of the critic, the defenders of the "thinker". The implication is that the critic is incapable of understanding. In other words, there is a subtle reverse claim that the critic is sort of "stupid". So, I raise this protest on Jerry's behalf.
Overall, I can accept some people like Heidegger in the way that people like Beethovan or Bach. As far as the greatest thinker of the _____, those who claim that have a gigantic burden of putting right out here exactly what those great thoughts were, as far as I'm concerned, and I haven't seen that on for H on this thread, or any other. Otherwise, for me I have to treat myself as the final arbiter on all questions of what's the best in thought about death, life, human beings, all being, "the most profound questions about the universe", whatever.
I don't know exactly how to put it, but H gets zero extra points from me for being a famous philosopher. Conventional "wisdom" has failed too much in practice in the real world to take on conventional reputation anybody's credentials. Then H does have a rather weird demerit to overcome in that somehow his genius didn't inform him not to be a Nazi. That still is not so easily "waived" as many here seem to do. From my standpoint, you all have an extraordinarily big presumption against H being the "greatest thinker" of anything given he didn't think not to be a Nazi. That extraordinary fact just can't be swept under the rug. That's not _ad hominem_ as far as I am concerned. A decision to join or not to join the Nazis implicates all one's thinking.
^^^^
Ravi: It's been about 10 years since I last read Heidegger -- I wish I had the time to go back and reread the stuff that I found so beautifully explanatory ("Sorge" for instance), driving away in mere days the fog of confusion and strandedness/alienation created over years of training in analytical fields and their false dualisms and reductionisms.
CB: I believe it is that way for you. But for others, it would take more than that to agree with your sentiment.
In general, I have a thought about this whole thread which I don't know if I can articulate clearly enough. Anyway, I think most people on this list should be at a point in their intellectual careers where they consider themselves "the best thinker for themselves". It takes one to know one. For anybody to _know_ that H or somebody else is "great" , they themselves have already to be a great thinker. So, lets hear it from the members of the list, with references to H or others as a comparison to what great ideas people on this list themselves have. I rather try to understand Ravi's thinking than H's. I can't ask Heidegger any questions.