The issue of history has been a constant among the subjects of this blog, either approach the "cycle time" in the treaty gnosis Henry Corbin , whether Marxist approach history as conducting material imagination , treated by Loren Goldner , through the insights of Nietzsche on "utility or desirability of history for life" or the "Theses on the Philosophy of History" of Walter Benjamin .
is not a concern for "the past events ", let alone by the" recording of past events, in truth, not about "facts" but an understanding of "that which speaks" in history. In contrast to the story as "science factual record" and the kind of consciousness that justifies it, may well be called "historiography." But as Heidegger wrote and in the late 30's:
historiography is linked to past events, seen in each case of this form or another historical meditation, however, is linked to that happen on the basis of which can only become and be the facts. Meditation is historical subject to a higher law and more rigorous historiography, although it may seem that the reverse occurs.
This paragraph is taken from its course fundamental questions of philosophy. "Problems" select "logic" Xolocoatzi translated by Angel Yanes, for ed. Comares, Granada, 2008 (p. 48 et seq.), Of which I've posted a clip on the website of the Centre, under the name of consideration historical and historiographical Meditation . There, among other things, can be read (emphasis added) :
historiographical consideration is essential only in so far as it is carried by a historical meditation, directed by it in the approaches of the questions and determined by it in the delimitation of its tasks. But conversely it also states that consideration and historiographical knowledge are essential. This is much more to an era that has to free itself from the shackles of historiography and its confusion with history. This release is necessary because a creative era should be protected against both an imitation, often unscientific and weak past , as against irreverent abuse of what has been , two seemingly opposing attitudes on a mutual, which are merged very easily, but that in itself are completely entangled.
is well known that the natural sciences support the historiographical account of his own past as merely an addition, since in general the past for them is only what is already is not. Natural science itself always considered this nature only ( gegenwärtigen ). Based on this attitude long ago a famous mathematician said, being a discussion of the occupation of a chair of classical philology, that chair should be replaced by a chair natural sciences, with the following argument: that of dealing with classical philology is already "past." By contrast, natural sciences consider not only the real this , but they can even predict, calculate in advance how it should be real and thus can support the technique. Conversely, the historiography of the natural science discoveries and theories are past, which have been long surpassed by progress. The "history" of science, from the standpoint of historiography, is to science what natural science is constantly leaves behind in its progress toward ever new results. The historiography of the natural science does not belong to her or his conduct. By considering the sequence historiographical doctrines and past discoveries one can at most beautifully clear how far it has come and how far have been delayed past, which still dominate the "philosophy" and "speculation" with unsustainable dreams, which now finally been broken by the accurate and sober account of the "facts." Thus, historiographical consideration may find that a philosopher like Aristotle was of the opinion that heavy bodies fall faster than light, while the "facts" of modern science have noted that all bodies fall at the same speed. Historiographical consideration of this type is therefore a compensation increase of progress, where new in each case is seen as more progressive.
However, beyond the historiographical account is still possible, as we say, historical meditation and some day will be even essential. Ask for historical meditation fundamental experience and the fundamental concept that had the Greeks in general, and especially Aristotle, "nature" of the body, movement, place and time. Historical meditation will recognize that the fundamental experience Aristotle and Greek nature was so kind that the rate of fall of heavy bodies and light and the appropriate place could not be seen or determined at all differently from how they were determined. A historical meditation will recognize that the Greek doctrine of natural processes is not based on insufficient observation, but other conception of nature -perhaps even deeper, which precedes all unique observations. For Aristotle "physical" means precisely the metaphysics of nature.
A historical meditation also recognize that just modern natural science is based on a metaphysics so so unconditional, so strong and so obvious that most scientists do not suspect anything about it. A historical meditation on the fundamentals of natural science modern aided recognize that the very fact that modern experimental science is asserted as the only real, can only be viewed as facts and substantiated in the light of a metaphysics of the very specific nature, a metaphysics that is not less work for the fact that today's scientists do not know nothing of it. On the contrary, the great scientists, who based the modern natural science, have been and remain great precisely because they had the strength and passion, but also education for the fundamental thinking.
A historical meditation recognize that it makes no sense at all to measure the Aristotelian doctrine of motion simply on the results of the doctrine of Galileo and judge the first and last as delayed and progressive, because in both cases "nature" means something completely different . According to the calculation of historiography, modern natural science is certainly more progressive than the Greek, if the technical mastery and with it the destruction of nature is progress, as opposed to the custody of nature as a metaphysical power. However, this progressive modern natural science, thought from the standpoint of historical meditation, is not one iota more real than the Greek, however, at most, more untrue , because it is fully enmeshed in his scheme of many discoveries methodical and let out what is the proper object of these discoveries: the nature, the human reference to it and its position therein.
compensation Comparison and historiography of the past and present lead to the result of the escalation of the actual. Historical meditation on what the future was and intellection leads to the lack of ground reference or current lack of reference to nature, to the insight that the natural sciences in general all the sciences are, despite their progress, or perhaps precisely because of the progress-in a crisis. Indeed, as it sounds now, should "shut up finally today the talk about the crisis of science" (speech of registration of the current president, beginning December 1937). However, the "crisis" of science is not so far not been represented in "chairs" of paleontology, ethnology, ethnography, and others, nor is she yet was not sufficiently "close to life itself-that it is too much. However, you can stop talking about these things as "crisis" of science. Because deep crisis these makers are fully in line with current science and indulge in it, may even be their best advocates, as soon have their respective positions. But the "crisis" of course is another and not from 1933 or even 1918, blamed the nineteenth century, but the beginning of modernity, what was not a mistake, but a destination and a destination only be surpassed by .
The most acute crisis of contemporary science could be that she does not suspect at all how the crisis is involved, that she believes to be already sufficiently confirmed by his success and tangible results. But everything spiritual and everything that wants to dominate as spiritual power, and would have to be more than just a hustle, and never can be confirmed by the success and usefulness . historical meditation into question the present and future of science itself and destroys his faith in progress, since that meditation does know that in essentials no progress, but only the transformation of the same . Historiographical consideration is for the natural sciences and all knowledge perhaps only one external addition does take knowledge of his own past as passed. By contrast, historical meditation belongs to the essence of all science, insofar as it intends to prepare and train beyond the useful results, a knowledge essential for their field and the field of being.
still science and current institution completely synthesizes only bureaucratically, "the university are very far from presenting some of the be-needed historical meditation. Why? Because this difference, presumably only the abstract, between the consideration historiography and historical meditation is not experienced or apprehended, and when not to be apprehended at all. Well, we are accustomed long to the fact that a scientist in his field may refer to achievements recognized at the same time may be blind, with a shocking ignorance, against everything that gives the science foundation and legitimacy. We even found it "wonderful." We have long slipped in the most desolate Americanism, the principle is that it is true what is successful and everything else is "speculation" that is "distant dreams of life."
Optimism is a good thing, but only the repression of pessimism, and pessimism and his opponent grow only on the site of a conception of reality and thus of history in the sense of a business whose prospects are calculated either as hopeful, sometimes as the opposite. There is only optimism and pessimism in considering the history of historiography. Optimists are people who can not get rid of pessimism, because "why else would they have to be optimistic? On the contrary, historical meditation is out of this opposition between optimism and pessimism, because it does have the joy of achievement and not with the horror of a stay of progress or even return, but the historical meditation works on the preparation of a Dasein (exist) historical is the height of their destiny, of the top moments of being.
This information should imply that the difference between the consideration historiography and historical meditation is not a construction of thought, a construction "speculative" and flying freely, but being-requires more hard of a decision , whose acceptance or neglect is critical about ourselves and about our determination to history.
In this bold and controversial comments, Heidegger and proposed the problem of " truth " when he says, for example, that the progressive and progressors modern science of nature "is not one iota more real" than the Greek. Grave mistake would interpret this statement as postulating the falseness of modern science against the "truth" of Greek science. This is fallacious, as Heidegger points here at the very historicity of "the truth"-which in no way implies a giving up the truth, but rather the need for historical appropriation (not historiography) that truth and that destination , which is so true.
can read the entire article itching here .
0 comments:
Post a Comment