I mean, yeah

The Hegelian program of a history of philosophy was itself philosophy in the fullest sense… Indeed, Hegel virtually named the history of philosophy the heart [das Innerste] of world history.

So that’s what’s at stake here. This is an awareness of mine that is so “sedimented” I usually don’t make it explicit. I just expect my reader to already be aware of it themselves. The question of H is the question of the heart of world history.

Not to sound obnoxious but if Hegel is right above then it’s probably important to understand the history of the history of philosophy [sic].

For instance

the Marburg Neo-Kantians pursued the history of philosophy as the history of problems. As Heidegger began to make his contemplative way, the tide had just begun to turn against the history of problems.

In order to know that history which is the heart of world history, you’d have to know the history OF the history. I.e. how the history has been conceptualized throughout history. “That sounds obnoxious the way you talk.” Well if it’s about the heart of world history then I really don’t care how it sounds.

This is what I’m implicitly getting at when I talk about Marx building shtetls in people’s minds. His version of the history of philosophy isn’t necessarily the MOST primary way of looking at it.

Let’s just stick with Gadamer here. The point of hermeneutics is to have as few unreflective presuppositions as possible. Yes, it is impossible, and hermeneuticists tend to readily admit that. The ideal is the FEWEST, not NONE. Gadamer for instance is the first major German thinker in over 200 years to not consider himself as making a break with tradition. Kant thought he was, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, to name the most prominent. Gadamer’s like Nah, there’s too much sediment built up to think that’s even possible.

He reads H like a book, look at this

H was going to be a priest before he began studying philosophy. So if we want to learn what true Greekness is we need to understand this about our “Commentator”. I’m probably going to write about his dissertation on the scholastic Duns Scotus one of these days, for that very reason.

Gadamer was definitely the kind of person who could see right into your soul

Heidegger preferred [Aristotle’s] ethics and rhetoric—in short, disciplines of the Aristotelian pedagogical program that were presented as being clearly detached from questions concerning the principles of theoretical philosophy.

Look at this sly dog- he inverted Hegel

Unlike Hegel’s, his was certainly not a teleological construction beginning with the end; rather, it was a construction based on a beginning, a beginning that already held the fate of Being

Inversions are too easy, in my opinion. That itself is a type of “sediment”. For H here this inversion is actually Nietzsche sediment. He pushed the neech telos farther than anyone so far

Heidegger thus endeavored repeatedly to overcome the idealistic misconception of the beginnings of Greek philosophy, a misconception that saw its culmination in Hegel

I.e. Hegel didn’t culminate the Greeks if he got the Greeks wrong. So Heidegger sets on the path to do that himself, carrying the neech torch.

“The heart of world history” cannot be understood if the politics of the Great Minds of recent times obscure your vision.

For some reason I’m remembering something funny from another context- Gadamer said Strauss’s best friend Klein’s interpretation of the Greeks was “Talmud in the wrong place”. In other words, within ZOG, where everyone is at least partially jewish, the heart of world history is intrinsically obscure due to “Jerusalem” being intrinsically obscuring. Thought-experiment- you’re stranded on a desert island- do you wish you had a Hegel book or a Gaon book? Kind of tells you it all.

So shall we continue to follow this Athenian chain of initiation?

Here is Gadamer’s judgment

Next to appendixes to the texts on Nietzsche, Heidegger’s treatise on this chapter [two, book one] of Aristotle’s Physics remains his most mature and perspectivally rich examination of Greek thinking.

Are you able to wrap your mind around this next twist?

He emphasized repeatedly up to his death that he found the talk of a collapse of the Hegelian system and Hegelian idealism to be completely inappropriate. It was not the Hegelian philosophy that collapsed, but rather everything else that followed, including Nietzsche. This was a statement that he often repeated.

H used N on the Greeks to more originarily culminate the tradition as a Hegelian.

It’s only the heart of world history, so don’t stress too much about it.

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: