size=150[/size] “I probably wouldn’t have read Nietzsche if I hadn’t read Heidegger. I tried to read Nietzsche in the fifties, but Nietzsche by himself said nothing to me. Whereas Nietzsche and Heidegger – that was the philosophical shock!”
size=150[/size] “For me Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher… My entire philosophical development was determined by my reading of Heidegger… I nevertheless recognize that Nietzsche outweighed him. I do not know Heidegger well enough.”
[size=134]-Foucault, in his last interview[/size]
…
I am interested in hearing opinions concerning the question in the heading of this thread. It is of course an allusion to the old Heidegger’s Nietzsche/Nietzsche’s Heidegger conundrum. What kind of relation does Foucault have with Heidegger? I have been researching this topic recently. It remains a contentious domain. Any input would be appreciated.
Can’t help you there. To me Heidegger is simply the truck stop in the middle of Nevada so you can gas up so to get up to the Rockies, not very interesting his own right, a good place to stretch your legs, walk around, take a pee and then get on with your trip. Clearly Foucault disagrees, but I find the Nietzsche-Foucault connection more compelling, due to the focus on power. Foucault fills in the gap in Nietzsche, that he missed when attempting to surpass Spinoza. Power is always in assemblage. Perhaps what Foucault took most from Heidegger is the stylistic force of sounding rigorously complex - something all of us Continentals can appreciate.
Anyways that’s my two cents, just in case no one else responds to the thread.
Do tell me though; precisely how much Heidegger have you read? I would have said that Heidegger is rather incessently pre-occupied with power; the more of his stuff that is published, the more this becomes clear. Take Die Geschichte des Seyns, for example.
In other news, Of Grammatology is rather dense and boring, really. Of Spirit was better. In truth though I have had a soft spot for Derrida ever since his shenanigans with John Searle caught my attention. There is a lot of genuinely disturbing negative sentiment out there, directed towards this man. It sickens me mostly because it is the worldly disequivalent of my own split philosophical interests. The sheer contempt is almost unimaginable - it is so pure that you can barely perceive it. Like a silent scream in the night.
I have also softened vis-a-vis Foucault. I suspect he missed the boat a little though on Nietzschegger. In any case, I will now study him in depth. Some day. Can’t say the same about John Searle.
Being and Time (twice)
Early Greek Thinking.
Existence and Being.
*Heraclitus Seminar (three times)
History of the Concept of Time
*Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister” (twice)
*Parmenides (three times)
*The Phenomenology of Religious Life
*Plato’s Sophist (twice)
Those works with* in the last year, everything else not since ten years ago or more. Multiple readings were mostly based on my exploration of Greek language and not particular interest in his position per se. How much do I have to read to be moved to the clarity of your understanding (which of course you really didn’t present at all).
Derrida, quirky and boring – I’m not sure that is a good thing or not.
You may, as always, read precisely how much you want. If you are not interested, then it makes little difference how much of my ‘understanding’ I present here, whether it is ‘moving’, or whether it is ‘clear’. You will choose for yourself where to look for ideas to enrich your philosophical understanding.
Heidegger though does seem quite occupied with power, as is evidenced in several of his private monographs - such as the aforementioned History of Beyng, and also the Contributions to Philosophy. In these texts you will find an interpretation of ‘machination’ and ‘power’ which is stretched out across Heidegger’s entire ‘being-historical’ narrative, meaning of course that Heidegger’s concern with the metaphysical tradition is everywhere and always, ipso facto, a concern for power, and, of course, for ‘will-to-power’. His lectures on the concept of force in Aristotle carry part of this implication also. Force is understood in the Nietzschean sense as configurations of power. In fact, reading Heidegger as a Nietzschean isn’t such a bad idea, though it is a beginning rather than an end to understanding Heidegger’s overall philosophical project - which, as you will know, is defined most noticeably on the back of his self-delineation from Nietzsche.
It is an interesting point, in any case, that I am unable to read much of what you have read, due to the heavy reliance on the Greek language, with which I am yet to become familiar (2010 or later, sadly enough ). In any case, I believe that some of Heidegger’s most important work - especially for understanding his relation to Foucault - is to be found in his Nietzsche lectures; also What is Called Thinking?, The Age of the World Picture, The Question Concerning Technology etc etc.
As for Derrida, I find him occasionally quirky as well. Boring, also on occasion, would not be too strong a characterisation. What I like most about him is his understanding of Hegel, and the way that I can appropriate his way of thinking into my own understanding of rhetoric - this being of course a complimentary trick in my overall repetoire.
). In any case, I believe that some of Heidegger’s most important work -