My writing for last week talked a little bit about the piece and focused on the word nothing and how Heidegger isn't referring to a lack of everything, but more to the absence of intelligent life. I ended my paper by mentioning that the idea of 'intelligence' is very vague.
few pages later, Heidegger states that we need to think about what we
can do for philosophy rather than what it does for us. I'm not sure if I
just densely overlook the finer points of philosophy like a low
resolution photo blown up too large or if all philosophers actually do
think too highly of themselves, but it certainly feels like it. I'm
sure they had the right back then, when only the well-off who didn't
have to work had time for philosophical musings, placing them over the
"Whenever we set out in the direction of this
question , thinking and gazing ahead, then right away we forgo any
sojourn in any of the usual regions of beings. We pass over and surpass
what belongs to the order of the day." (108)
When I first read the
above sentences, I was thinking about it in a 'is he referring to humans
or all animals?' mindset. However, after considering the smugness of
philosophers and the low percent who were able to pursue it, my question
is now changed to are they talking about why do all animals exist, why
do humans exist, or why do philosophers exist. I'm going to go with the
idea that he's saying why do philosophers exist, especially after he quotes Nietzsche "Philosophy... means living voluntarily amid ice and mountain ranges" (108).
I have a million things I think about that, ranging from pleasure that
they aren't trying to conform it, to annoyance for the same reason and
then amusement that they feel the un-educated are nothing more then
blocks of ice to be suffered.