![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
High today, here: 17. Dewpoint then: 16. High dewpoint: 16.
High today in TO: 17. Dewpoint then: 14. High dewpoint: 16.
Supposed to get down to 4 tonight; 2 in Bancroft. Could be frost on the pumpkins in the morning.
I should've gone with Jermaine Dye. He's still hot, and now I've got nowhere to put Derrek Lee. Unless Hafner never comes back. Argh.
I'm pretty sure the story most consistently in the headlines around here over the last year or two is: Kids These Days Are Too Fat. (Yesterday, the story was about how various standards--car safety standards, medicine dosages, and so forth--need to be rejigged because kids these days are fat.) A few weeks ago, I saw an editorial or op-ed somewhere with the headline "Ads don't make kids fat" (like, you know, guns don't kill people; eating too much kills people), and I thought, wow, we've gone the full 180 degrees from ten or fifteen years ago, when it would've been "Ads don't make girls thin".
Finished Kojève. Heidegger finally comes out of the shadows, in a footnote, 44 pages from the end, though what he says particularly about Heidegger there doesn't seem to make any particular sense: after Kant, Heidegger in Being and Time "seems to be the first to have posed the problem of a dual ontology", where "dual ontology" refers to a duality between staticly self-identical nature and dialectically progressive humanity, but "one does not get the impression that he has gone beyond the dualistic phenomenology which is to be found in the first volume of Sein und Zeit"; "as for the dualistic ontology itself, it seems to be the principal philosophic task of the future." I have very little idea, right off, what sense to make of that (and the idea that Being and Time isn't doing "ontology" is very peculiar, since Heidegger says he's doing ontology with a phenomenological method--but very peculiar ideas from before readings become settled can often be very important correctives). What's intriguing, of course, given what I've been saying about Kojève's career path is that, here, obviously, he's saying that there is more left for philosophy--and not for Hegelian philosophy--to do.
And, the very last bit in the book is a footnote on Heidegger, in which he says that Being and Time "adds, fundamentally, nothing new to the anthropology of the Phenomenology (which, by the way, would probably never have been understood if Heidegger had not published his book)." I mean, it's hard to miss, all the way through, but that really puts the exclamation mark on it.
What's a bit disconcerting, though, is that, at least a couple of times, he seems to be quoting bits of Heidegger (today, toward the end, on the difference between human and animal death) that, as far as I know, hadn't appeared yet--so was Heidegger quoting him? Or is Heidegger actually riffing on Hegel? Or--what?
Next: On Tyranny.
High today in TO: 17. Dewpoint then: 14. High dewpoint: 16.
Supposed to get down to 4 tonight; 2 in Bancroft. Could be frost on the pumpkins in the morning.
I should've gone with Jermaine Dye. He's still hot, and now I've got nowhere to put Derrek Lee. Unless Hafner never comes back. Argh.
I'm pretty sure the story most consistently in the headlines around here over the last year or two is: Kids These Days Are Too Fat. (Yesterday, the story was about how various standards--car safety standards, medicine dosages, and so forth--need to be rejigged because kids these days are fat.) A few weeks ago, I saw an editorial or op-ed somewhere with the headline "Ads don't make kids fat" (like, you know, guns don't kill people; eating too much kills people), and I thought, wow, we've gone the full 180 degrees from ten or fifteen years ago, when it would've been "Ads don't make girls thin".
Finished Kojève. Heidegger finally comes out of the shadows, in a footnote, 44 pages from the end, though what he says particularly about Heidegger there doesn't seem to make any particular sense: after Kant, Heidegger in Being and Time "seems to be the first to have posed the problem of a dual ontology", where "dual ontology" refers to a duality between staticly self-identical nature and dialectically progressive humanity, but "one does not get the impression that he has gone beyond the dualistic phenomenology which is to be found in the first volume of Sein und Zeit"; "as for the dualistic ontology itself, it seems to be the principal philosophic task of the future." I have very little idea, right off, what sense to make of that (and the idea that Being and Time isn't doing "ontology" is very peculiar, since Heidegger says he's doing ontology with a phenomenological method--but very peculiar ideas from before readings become settled can often be very important correctives). What's intriguing, of course, given what I've been saying about Kojève's career path is that, here, obviously, he's saying that there is more left for philosophy--and not for Hegelian philosophy--to do.
And, the very last bit in the book is a footnote on Heidegger, in which he says that Being and Time "adds, fundamentally, nothing new to the anthropology of the Phenomenology (which, by the way, would probably never have been understood if Heidegger had not published his book)." I mean, it's hard to miss, all the way through, but that really puts the exclamation mark on it.
What's a bit disconcerting, though, is that, at least a couple of times, he seems to be quoting bits of Heidegger (today, toward the end, on the difference between human and animal death) that, as far as I know, hadn't appeared yet--so was Heidegger quoting him? Or is Heidegger actually riffing on Hegel? Or--what?
Next: On Tyranny.
