Golfo Maggini

Αναμφίβολα, όσοι γνώρισαν προσωπικά και όχι μόνο μέσα από τα κείμενά του τον Ευθύμη Παπαδημητρίου, θα θυμούνται ότι ο ίδιος κατέφευγε συχνά σε αυτήν την έκφραση, όταν αναφερόταν σε κάτι αυτονόητο ή σε κάτι δύσκολο στην πραγμάτωση του και άρα δεν σχετίζεται άμεσα με τη συνήθη χρήση της ως έκφραση στην αγγλική γλώσσα. Επιπλέον, οι ίδιοι μάλλον θα συμφωνήσουν μαζί μου, ότι οι παρελθοντικοί χρόνοι που θα ακουστούν/θα χρησιμοποιηθούν σήμερα εδώ και θα τον αφορούν, θα δημιουργήσουν, μάλλον, αμηχανία, αφού, αν θέλουμε να είμαστε ακριβείς στην περιγραφή μας οφείλουμε να προκρίνουμε στις αναφορές μας για εκείνον, ως πιο ενδεδειγμένο χρόνο έναν Εξακολουθητικό Ενεστώτα, ο οποίος στην περίπτωση του Παπαδημητρίου μπορεί αβίαστα να συμπαρουσιάζεται με έναν Οραματικό Μέλλοντα…

Dans notre article, nous nous proposons d’étudier la désignation de la pensée du commencement-initial par Heidegger comme “le style de I’etre-homme à venir’ dans ses Contributions à la Philosophie (1936-1938). Nous traitons le rapport du “style” à l’historialité de la pensée et en particulier à la tonalité affective fondamentale de la retenue. Par la suite, nous soulevons la question du style dans l’art en retraçant l’origine du “style de la pensée initiale” dans la critique heideggérienne de l’esthétique et de safondation métaphysique. Plutôt que témoigner de l’esthetisation de sa pensée, ce thème met en lumiere son projet de “destruction” de I’esthétique telle qu’elle a lieu dans le premier cours sur Nietzsche. Nous soutenons que l’analyse du grand style nietzschéen tel qu’il a lieu dans ce cours sert de filconducteurpour sa qualification de I’autre commencement de la philosophie de “style de pensée”. Par ailleurs, la réflexion des deux penseurs sur le motif du style témoigne de leur intérêt commun à la catégorie esthétique du sublime. Les Contributions à la Philosophie poursuivent ce motif à ses conséquences ontologiques ultimes.This paper focuses on Heidegger’s designation of inceptive thought (anfängliches Denken) as the “style of the being-human that is to come” in his Contributions to Philosophy (1936-38). Its relation to historicity and the ground attunement of retention (Verhaltenheit) will be discussed. The question of style in art will then be raised by tracing back the “style” of inceptive thinking to Heidegger’s critique of Western aesthetics and its metaphysical foundation. Rather than witnessing the “aesthetisation” of the thought performing the “leap” beyond metaphysics, this motive brings forth his project of “destruction” of aesthetics as it takes place in the first lecture course on Nietzsche. This article claims that the analysis of Nietzsche’s grand style (grosse Stil) in this very course serves as the leading thread in his repeatedallusions to the “other inception” in philosophy in terms of a “style of thought”. Moreover, the reflexion on the style in both thinkers reveals an interest in the aesthetic category of the sublime. Heidegger’s Contributions to Philosophy leads this motive to its ultimate ontological consequences

This paper explores two different, even opposite, genealogies of Europe in contemporary phenomenology by Martin Heidegger and Jan Patočka. On the one hand, the paper focuses upon Heidegger’s 1936 lecture on “Europe and German Philosophy”, which is one of his lesser-known texts. In light of this reading, the paper examines a series of key commentaries by Éliane Escoubas, Franco Volpi, Franco Chiereghin, and Reiner Schürmann. On the other hand, the later Jan Patočka’s discourse on Europe lies upon utterly different hermeneutic premisses, construing a new humanism and renewing the metaphysical tradition in the form of negative Platonism. It concludes by arguing that the major differences between Heidegger’s and Patočka’s phenomenological genealogies of Europe are, first, their different stances toward Western metaphysics and humanism, and, second, their divergent understandings of historical lifeworlds.

Dans notre article, nous nous proposons d’étudier la désignation de la pensée du commencement-initial par Heidegger comme “le style de I’etre-homme à venir’ dans ses Contributions à la Philosophie (1936-1938). Nous traitons le rapport du “style” à l’historialité de la pensée et en particulier à la tonalité affective fondamentale de la retenue. Par la suite, nous soulevons la question du style dans l’art en retraçant l’origine du “style de la pensée initiale” dans la critique heideggérienne de l’esthétique et de safondation métaphysique. Plutôt que témoigner de l’esthetisation de sa pensée, ce thème met en lumiere son projet de “destruction” de I’esthétique telle qu’elle a lieu dans le premier cours sur Nietzsche. Nous soutenons que l’analyse du grand style nietzschéen tel qu’il a lieu dans ce cours sert de filconducteurpour sa qualification de I’autre commencement de la philosophie de “style de pensée”. Par ailleurs, la réflexion des deux penseurs sur le motif du style témoigne de leur intérêt commun à la catégorie esthétique du sublime. Les Contributions à la Philosophie poursuivent ce motif à ses conséquences ontologiques ultimes.This paper focuses on Heidegger’s designation of inceptive thought (anfängliches Denken) as the “style of the being-human that is to come” in his Contributions to Philosophy (1936-38). Its relation to historicity and the ground attunement of retention (Verhaltenheit) will be discussed. The question of style in art will then be raised by tracing back the “style” of inceptive thinking to Heidegger’s critique of Western aesthetics and its metaphysical foundation. Rather than witnessing the “aesthetisation” of the thought performing the “leap” beyond metaphysics, this motive brings forth his project of “destruction” of aesthetics as it takes place in the first lecture course on Nietzsche. This article claims that the analysis of Nietzsche’s grand style (grosse Stil) in this very course serves as the leading thread in his repeatedallusions to the “other inception” in philosophy in terms of a “style of thought”. Moreover, the reflexion on the style in both thinkers reveals an interest in the aesthetic category of the sublime. Heidegger’s Contributions to Philosophy leads this motive to its ultimate ontological consequences.

RÉSUMÉ Notre article traite de l’interprétation heideggerienne du Surhomme chez Nietzsche en prenant en considération tout particulièrement sa désignation comme forme dans les cours de 1939-1946 qui constituent, sous plusieurs aspects, la culmination du « différend » avec lui. En effet, si anthropomorphie et subjectivité s'appartiennent mutuellement dans la métaphysique moderne, cette coappartenance trouve son achèvement chez le Surhomme. Elle indique par ailleurs la forclusion du sujet nietzschéen dans la logique de la négation, témoignage de la tentative heideggerienne pour « dialectiser » Nietzsche. C’est ainsi qu’une continuité s'établit entre sa position métaphysique et la dialectique hégélienne. Par ailleurs, nous nous efforçons de projeter cette interprétation réductrice sur la critique par Heidegger d’une des figures majeures du néohégélianisme au tournant du siècle, à savoir Oswald Spengler, telle qu’elle a lieu dans ses cours de l’herméneutique de la facticité. Notre stratégie interprétative est fidèle au principe interprétatif qui consiste à dire que le Heidegger d’avant Être et Temps, nous offre les outils nécessaires pour aborder certains motifs essentiels du développement ultérieur de sa pensée dont notamment sa confrontation avec la métaphysique. ABSTRACT This paper focuses on Heidegger's interpretation of the Ubermensch with a special emphasis on his designation as a form developped mainly in the 1939-1946 lecture courses on Nietzsche. The belonging- together of “unconditional” subjectivity and anthropomorphism reaches its completion in the “form” of the Ubermensch, while it also witnesses its forclosure in the logic of negativity. Consequently, a direct continuity is established between Nietzsche's metaphysical position and Hegel's dialectics. By taking this unexpected affinity as a starting point, we go back to Heidegger's early critique of hegelianism and especially of Spengler's project of a morphology of the cultures in his hermeneutics of facticity. This interpretative strategy unfolds according to the principle that the first steps on Heidegger's path of thinking offer us the necessary conceptual tools in order to come to terms with the later developments of his confrontation with metaphysics.

In this paper I deal with Hubert Dreyfus’s phenomenological ethics regarding information technologies and the use of the Internet. From the 1990s on, Dreyfus elaborates a multi-faceted model of ethical expertise which may find a paradigmatic field of application in the ways in which information technologies transform our sense of personal identity, as well as our view of ethical integrity and commitment. In his 2001 On the Internet, Dreyfus investigates further several of the ideas already present in his groundbreaking 1997 Disclosing New Worlds. A phenomenological ethics of the virtual aims at going beyond both the objectivist ideal of moral universalism, which departs from the dominant Cartesianism both in epistemology and in ethics, as well as from the postmodernist, Nietzsche-inspired moral relativism. By referring back to existentialism, especially to Kierkegaard, and to phenomenology, especially to Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology, Dreyfus sketches a model of ethical expertise which can be particularly useful for internet users and researchers, as it combines a phenomenological anthropology of the virtual with a theory of cultural innovation and change. In my view, Dreyfus’s model may help overcome the strict either determinist or relativist accounts of the ethical challenges posed by information technologies. By endorsing a strongly anti-intellectualist view of information technologies, Dreyfus poses the necessity of identity and ethical integrity not only as abstract principles that require rational justification, but also as context-bound everyday practices that are in conformity with the “style” of a culture and several disclosive activities within it.

Jan Patocka’s idea of Europe can be viewed as a continuation of Edmund Husserl’s reflections on the issue. Still, the differences are numerous and worthy to be studied, especially in today’s critical times for Europe’s future. Patocka doubts the teleological, rationality-based determination of Europe’s identity, and, following that, the diagnosis of Europe’s current crisis as a deficiency in rationalization, which could be in its turn overcome by a surplus of rationalization. Patocka’s early differentiation from Husserl’s intellectualist account of European humanity will lead to an integral, phenomenology-inspired philosophy of the European civilization. For Patocka, the prevailing of the “hegemonic” against the “universalist” Europe means a fall behind the standards of European humanity, to that of the mere biological level, as specified by today’s preponderant economy-oriented discourse. For him, the seeming victory of the “hegemonic” over the “universalist” Europe is false, because it already contains the seeds of its self-destruction

This volume is the result of the research project that was realized under the sponsorship of the Onassis Foundation. The eleven papers that are included in the volume have been selected vis-à-vis the actuality of the Greek, European and International political crisis. The organization of this collective volume into four thematic sections aims at revealing as many as possible contexts of the thematic dipoles: cosmopolitanism-patriotism, democracy-friendship, rights-toleration, identity-diversity, via different and often conflicting theoretical approaches.

Jan Patocka’s idea of Europe can be viewed as a continuation of Edmund Husserl’s reflections on the issue. Still, the differences are numerous and worthy to be studied, especially in today’s critical times for Europe’s future. Patocka doubts the teleological, rationality-based determination of Europe’s identity, and, following that, the diagnosis of Europe’s current crisis as a deficiency in rationalization, which could be in its turn overcome by a surplus of rationalization. Patocka’s early differentiation from Husserl’s intellectualist account of European humanity will lead to an integral, phenomenology-inspired philosophy of the European civilization. For Patocka, the prevailing of the “hegemonic” against the “universalist” Europe means a fall behind the standards of European humanity, to that of the mere biological level, as specified by today’s preponderant economy-oriented discourse. For him, the seeming victory of the “hegemonic” over the “universalist” Europe is false, because it already contains the seeds of its self-destruction.

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on Heidegger's 1937 lecture course on the Nietzschean doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Heidegger interprets the motive of recurrence in Nietzsche as the Moment of the Eternal Recurrence. Through this key motive of the moment, we try then to examine the double function of the doctrine which, on the one hand, refers us back to some essential themes of the existential analytics, whereas, on the other hand, it paves the way for the new confrontation with metaphysics in the Beiträge zur Philosophie. We hold that the turning away from the existential conception of the moment toward its "aletheiological" understanding in terms of a "site of the Moment" takes place in the context of this very lecture course. This transition is even more critical as it constitutes the very heart of Heidegger's critique of subjectivity in the new perspective opened by the history of Being: Nietzsche's doctrine of time provides the basis for this questioning.

Albert Borgmann’s account of modern technology is considered to be one of the leading positions in the American philosophy of technology which is informed by continental philosophical “paradigms”, such as hermeneutics. In particular Martin Heidegger’s late hermeneutics of the technological world has been a powerful source of inspiration for Borgmann, as has become evident in his Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. In our paper we will argue that, despite the strengths of Borgmann’s analysis both in the 1984 book as well as in his more recent studies, its obvious weakness pertains to the negligence or underestimation of Heidegger’s leading phenomenological line of thought. This negligence or underestimation compromises his approach to Heidegger’s account of technology, as becomes evident in the critiques addressed to him by phenomenologists, such as Hubert Dreyfus, and “postphenomenologists”, such as Don Ihde and Peter-Paul Verbeek.