Mitdasein is inviting submissions for its 2004 Jahrbuch (appearing in print) on a variety of topics, and in particular "Heidegger and the Greeks." Proposals may be submitted until March 13, 2003 either directly in forum or under firstname.lastname@example.org; we will consider proposals composed in any language native to the author.
We would like, in addition, to honor eight outstanding pieces of work with an EUR 50 gift.
Do you have requirements/suggestions for the length, citation format or other technical matters?
We recently reviewed a submission of about 50 pages at 12 pt, however, which is probably approaching the upper limit for a piece of article length.
MLA standards should be fine.
Do you have any particular interests?
This is more of a general question than something
specific to the journal: Does anyone know if/where
Heidegger discussed atomistic and Epicurean
philosophy (Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius,
Gassendi)? I know he refers briefly to Democritus
in Die Frage nach dem Ding and in "Vom Wesen und
Begriff der Physis" in Wegmarken, and he refers
to Epicurus in Aletheia, but I wondered if there
were more sustained considerations by Heidegger of
Epicurean thought. Any advice much appreciated.
That pretty much exhausts the resources of Feick's Index; and indeed rather the Eleatics, the Ionians and the Peripatetics enjoyed the privelege of Heidegger's sustained treatment.
In Aletheia, however, in spite of the brevity of the treatment, Heidegger lets loose some pregnant sayings which might form the basis of a synthesis:
"Die Verborgenheit bestimmt hier die Weise, wie der Mensch unter Menschen anwesen soll." 1)
1) Vorträge und Aufsätze. Stuttgart, Neske: 1954. S. 254.
Can someone please update me to the current status of this project?
Thanks for the message, Stuart.
I'd like to quite possibly include an upcoming translation of Zur Seinsfrage in this edition, if we can meet the deadline; if not, we'll go forth as planned and I'll earmark it for 2005.
Thanks for this Peter. A new translation of Zur Seinsfrage? This is interesting news. There was the old 1958 translation, and a more recent one by McNeill in Pathmarks. What's the rationale for another translation of this piece, given that so much is not translated at all? I've not looked at the new translation by McNeill in any detail - the 1958 one was a bilingual edition, which served me fine.
All posts, unless otherwise publishÃ¨d, are © their several authors.