<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Agree with the previous reader
Review: I am fluent in German and own a copy of the Beitraege and am reading the English together with the German. Even the translation of "Ereignis" as "Enonwing" is problematic, since "eignen" in the German means to make fit or suited or appropriate to. Krell's translation of Ereignis as appropriation or event of appropriation is much better, since it captures both owning and fitting. Besides, the accompanying "er" words (such as erdacht) often get translated in a bizarre way (erdacht becomes the horrible "enthought"), so that the parallelism becomes ludicrous to maintain. I wish the editor John Sallis had taken more of a hand in editing this translation, since it's really important. In the (self-justifying, historically barren)introduction, the translators go on and on about Heidegger's "syntax" and "ambiguity" in a way which is embarassing, since Heidegger would question a style of translation which seeks to isolate syntax and minimize ambiguity. So they also show themselves to be well outside the spirit of Heidegger's thought. In the end, if you don't read German, I would still highly recommend this translation since you can get discern the main thrusts of Heidegger's involvement with the question within it and it is THE essential text which joins his later work. But for the subtlety and grace of Heidegger's thought enacted in English, we are still waiting for a suitably gifted translator, except perhaps for Sallis' Essence of Truth translation. Once again, it is a pity he did not find the time to involve himself more with this translation.
Rating:
Summary: Agree with the previous reader
Review: I am fluent in German and own a copy of the Beitraege and am reading the English together with the German. Even the translation of "Ereignis" as "Enonwing" is problematic, since "eignen" in the German means to make fit or suited or appropriate to. Krell's translation of Ereignis as appropriation or event of appropriation is much better, since it captures both owning and fitting. Besides, the accompanying "er" words (such as erdacht) often get translated in a bizarre way (erdacht becomes the horrible "enthought"), so that the parallelism becomes ludicrous to maintain. I wish the editor John Sallis had taken more of a hand in editing this translation, since it's really important. In the (self-justifying, historically barren)introduction, the translators go on and on about Heidegger's "syntax" and "ambiguity" in a way which is embarassing, since Heidegger would question a style of translation which seeks to isolate syntax and minimize ambiguity. So they also show themselves to be well outside the spirit of Heidegger's thought. In the end, if you don't read German, I would still highly recommend this translation since you can get discern the main thrusts of Heidegger's involvement with the question within it and it is THE essential text which joins his later work. But for the subtlety and grace of Heidegger's thought enacted in English, we are still waiting for a suitably gifted translator, except perhaps for Sallis' Essence of Truth translation. Once again, it is a pity he did not find the time to involve himself more with this translation.
Rating: 
Summary: At Least he didn't call this book: Sick Puppy.
Review: I am not overly familiar with this book. It is the most recent translation of a major work by Heidegger that I have seen this year, and I thought I ought to look into it to see if the thinking around Heidegger is getting any better for me personally. The more I know about philosophy, the less I have to read to start getting an opinion of my own, and a page of this stuff was usually enough to put me in a different frame of mind. Plowing on after I lost my idea of whatever thread I was following had a tendency to be soporific, so I recommend this book to people who have a lot of time to sleep.There is a little section 72, "Nihilism" on pages 96-8 which makes me think philosophy must mean a lot less now than when Nietzsche inspired Heidegger to write, "Nihilism in Nietzsche's sense means that all goals are gone" (p. 96). For the 20th century to produce a great philosopher like Heidegger and put him in the midst of some of the greatest political foolishness of the 20th century, and have most professional philosophers think that he was showing too much activism when he joined the Nazi party, but was being extremely professional when he managed to maintain his standing in the party while Hitler was in power by not saying anything bad about Hitler, makes me think the comedians of the age might have been in a better position to do some political thinking. In the movie, "The Dance of Genghis Cohn," a little dummy that looks like Hitler was the kind of funny bit which got the comedian beat up by some younger members of the Nazi party right after the show. That kind of German society seems to be what Heidegger has most on his mind in his description of nihilism. "Proof for this is the gigantically organized event for shouting down this anxiety. . . . The most disastrous nihilism consists in passing oneself off as protector of Christianity . . . on the basis of social accomplishments" (p. 97). Younger people than Heidegger have found a lot of individual ways for having goals, and the main reason that they haven't been able to put it together is that a collection like the United Stoners of America is not naturally cohesive. Heidegger was a long way from wanting that to be so out in the open. He must attempt to be so philosophical that his last sentence for the section on nihilism is "Instead this awareness must recognize the abandonment of being as essential sway. (p. 98).
Rating:
Summary: At Least he didn't call this book: Sick Puppy.
Review: I am not overly familiar with this book. It is the most recent translation of a major work by Heidegger that I have seen this year, and I thought I ought to look into it to see if the thinking around Heidegger is getting any better for me personally. The more I know about philosophy, the less I have to read to start getting an opinion of my own, and a page of this stuff was usually enough to put me in a different frame of mind. Plowing on after I lost my idea of whatever thread I was following had a tendency to be soporific, so I recommend this book to people who have a lot of time to sleep. There is a little section 72, "Nihilism" on pages 96-8 which makes me think philosophy must mean a lot less now than when Nietzsche inspired Heidegger to write, "Nihilism in Nietzsche's sense means that all goals are gone" (p. 96). For the 20th century to produce a great philosopher like Heidegger and put him in the midst of some of the greatest political foolishness of the 20th century, and have most professional philosophers think that he was showing too much activism when he joined the Nazi party, but was being extremely professional when he managed to maintain his standing in the party while Hitler was in power by not saying anything bad about Hitler, makes me think the comedians of the age might have been in a better position to do some political thinking. In the movie, "The Dance of Genghis Cohn," a little dummy that looks like Hitler was the kind of funny bit which got the comedian beat up by some younger members of the Nazi party right after the show. That kind of German society seems to be what Heidegger has most on his mind in his description of nihilism. "Proof for this is the gigantically organized event for shouting down this anxiety. . . . The most disastrous nihilism consists in passing oneself off as protector of Christianity . . . on the basis of social accomplishments" (p. 97). Younger people than Heidegger have found a lot of individual ways for having goals, and the main reason that they haven't been able to put it together is that a collection like the United Stoners of America is not naturally cohesive. Heidegger was a long way from wanting that to be so out in the open. He must attempt to be so philosophical that his last sentence for the section on nihilism is "Instead this awareness must recognize the abandonment of being as essential sway. (p. 98).
Rating:
Summary: Beitrage Zur Philosophie
Review: I recommend that first you pour yourself a glass of wine, drink it and relax and dip into...Now what was he saying about Enowing and the Ones to Come and the Last God and all...? That's right, chill out with the Magician from Messkirch. let Der Man speak his words. this is Beitrage Zur Philosophie, baby. The Big Think. Gotta ride this wave. It will take you someplace to think about.
<< 1 >>
|
