Posted by klozem on April 26, 19100 at 09:21:50:
is it fair to say that Heideggers pointing out the (rather trivial) notion of the circularity inherent in attempting to define art (i.e. in terms of artist)or the artist (in terms of art)is anlogous to the problem of being. one has to have being (be alive)to realise what it is to be alive
it's just that im rather skeptical aboput the ontological strength of the claims fpr the existence of the world in the work of art. rather i feel that this is rhtorical or literay device to demonstrate why Being is so hard to get at. another problem it appears to me, is that if the essence of art is to unconceal
and therefore to show the truth, then there is another circularity inherent here.(similar, tenuously perhaps though, to parmenides' worries of being able to recogniose the truth when we see it if we dont know what the truth is.im perfectly aware that he talks of the strength and beuty of thought being the ability to penetrate
and live with these circular arguments, but really, doesnt this just amount to saying that "you know you exist, it doesnt need any further proof, go away and do some existing" or is my thinking just not strong or beautiful enough?
would appreciate an responses to this!