Im kind of obsessed with chains of initiation. Someone else who attended H’s Aristotle courses was Gadamer. The latter likened the experience to “an electric shock”. He went on to write voluminously on the Greeks in his 102 years of life. As a student he studied Plato under the two main experts in Germany, Natorp and H. As a young man he would even “hang out” with H at his cabin in the Black Forest. So there seems to be something special about this disciple, and you don’t hear much about him, at least in the Anglosphere. If there’s one person I’d trust to “introduce” H it probably would have to be him, and he happens to have a book on H, consisting of essays written between the 60s and 90s. That’s almost like saying “69”- there, do I have your attention now? One of the only things left to be published of H’s Gesamtausgabe is his correspondence, and maybe we will be able to narrow down a more “authentic” disciple from that. As things stand now, I isolate Gadamer as the prime candidate. And no, “for whatever reason” I don’t trust what his teaching assistant of a few years, (((Marcuse))), had to say about him.
Here are a few things they both focus on and also disagree with each other about
the relation of art and truth, the limits of the claims of language, and the aporias of history and tradition
Gadamer says the first time he ever saw him he didn’t look like a professor of philosophy, he looked like an engineer or a technician
However, if one wants to stick with the physiognomical, the first time one caught a glimpse of his eyes one knew who he was and is: a visionary. A thinker who sees.
This kind of sounds like a “true human being”
Heidegger was a person beset by great questions and final things, a person who was shaken down to the last fibers of his existence, who was concerned with God and death, with Being and “nothing,” and who had been called to thinking as the mission of his life.
Gadamer says the whole generation was like that after the first world war. Maybe we need a war…
Gadamer was silent about his teacher until the 60s, probably because of another war that shook everyone down to the last fibers of existence. Make the reverberations end! Put Disneyland in Auschwitz NOW!
Anyway, Gadamer says you understand a different dimension of H when you HEAR him lecture, and that even recordings unfortunately are inadequate “mummifications”. ZOG isn’t going to produce an H, China isn’t going to produce an H, so these minute things are important. HAHA NIGGERWORLD! Nah, I’m not “bitter”.
He says his works after Being and Time are “like a constant ascent” and it’s easy to lose one’s way. H’s basic hermeneutic idea is that one should move from the clear to the obscure (hence he begins his course on Plato’s Sophist with 200 pages on Aristotle) and I think it’s similar with Being and Time and his later writings. Meanwhile most of the jagaloons only know Being and Time, and think they “know” H.
This reminds me of a bias in Schmitt scholarship too actually. His pre-1933 writings are taken to be primary and post-1933 writings are marginalized. I thought the liberals were the ones who were supposed to be embracing of “the Other”. Guess not. Neglect the two “culminations of Hegel” of the 20th century if you want, I don’t care. “We prefer the Marxists!” Okay, culminations of Marx. You can confess any day, you know? How many minds have I seen destroyed by Marx? I shudder to reflect. They might as well be volunteering to live in a mental shtetl. Hey, someone’s got to be an oompa-loompa, right? And all the while they schmooze the REAL capitalists, that’s the real tragedy of it. Totally pathetic phenomenon. Philosophy. The rare for the rare, as they say. FRAUD! The words of Marxists might as well be a series of Nike swooshes, that’s how compromised they are.
There is no need to be in denial about this
He says he made Aristotle a contemporary. He was the one who freed him from the Scholastics. A blip of time and the moment was gone. Now the person who did this is “the enemy”. That itself is a new confinement of Aristotle.
Just a 101 on Gadamer by the way- he’s generally considered the most significant hermeneuticist of the 20th century, i.e. “scientist of interpretation”. So, he wasn’t just “some kid who wandered the forest with H”.
What do the worthless American niggers care about any of this? Nothing. Trapped in sense-perception, forever. Their great-grandchildren will be the same type of chimp, except even more lowly. If you don’t see that they already are inferior to the slant-eye yellow people it’s probably because you’re one of them.
sigh This is an interesting point
So, even if H returns to the Greek language away from the Latin translations, our minds are still shaped by Latin, and we use those minds to interpret the Greek language.
There must be a way around this
we are simply unable to think anything that does not correspond to something already found in our own thinking
People in Gadamer’s tradition tend to think of this as “sedimentation”. There are layers of silt and limestone in our perception that began as one mere particle after another before solidifying. These are otherwise referred to as centuries of built-up presuppositions that we are unaware of.
Oooh so this explains some things then
It is rather surprising that one of Aristotle’s late texts, the Physics, could be of some help in this regard. Indeed, Aristotle attempted here—against the Pythagorean thinking of Plato—to renew an older way of thinking in which Being is thought as motility instead of a constant numerical harmony.
It took Aristotle until late in life to “de-sedimentize” his perception. Imagine the task of being Plato’s direct student and freeing yourself from HIS influence.
Question for another time- Are Pythagorean “numerology” and what H calls calculativeness related?
Gadamer says despite these problems H nevertheless did help us understand the Greeks in a more Greeklike sense. This is his opinion in his late 70s after a life of studying the Greeks. That’s some achievement then, especially if you believe the idea that “Christianity is Platonism for the mob”. That’s sediment that’s going to be nearly impossible to see through, and would require a genius to help us see through.
Appropriately enough, his next essay in this collection begins with questioning possible “Hegel sediment” in Heidegger’s thinking.