Tabucchi and Vonnegut talk about Sein und Zeit

Says my friend that Sein und Zeit is a must-read. I never approached it because it contains two objects in the title, and I don’t like objects, I like processes. I even despise my own natural language because it’s all based on objects. I much prefer the natural language of native Americans. In principle. Because in practice I don’t talk native American’s idiom, nor do I think in those terms (which reminds me I still have to read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus…)

But says my friend that’s precisely the point. Heidegger introduced that weird and awkward language because he fought against his own struggle with writing (he was no writer like Nietzsche, he was son of humble). And  because he had to make processes into words, he had to introduce a whole dictionary. To the point where he even defines a new word for “human” (desein).

And says my friend Heidegger for the most of his life had to fight against himself, because the “first Heidegger” at age 33 (the age when Jesus Christ retired) retired into a shit-hole place on the Alps, or in the black forest, or wherever, and wrote Sein und Zeit out of sheer unearthly inspiration. And for free. And then came the second Heidegger, who for the rest of his life studied what the fist Heidegger said, went through it over and over, trying to re-focus. The first Heidegger is a myth, the second a moron.

Apparently in Sein und Zeit the main character is the observer, and the book tries to resolve the hiatus between observer and observed. The conclusion is that this is not possible. The second Heidegger tries to solve this by taking the stands of the observed from the start, with even worse results.

And here is the catch: Sein und Zeit is a negative result in the production of philosophical ideas. Which might be the whole point of philosophy!

Says my friend that Substance and Function (and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) is also a must read for people interested in the philosophy of science. Apparently, Heidegger and Cassirer did not agree on the meaning and role of philosophy. Cassirer wanted it to expand the human possibilities. Heidegger wanted it to push humans back into their abyss.

I do not remember the exact words, but I think that was the point.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s