Talk:Gestell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought there needed to be an article here on Gestell, at least as conceived of by Heidegger. I am no expert on Heidegger, but I added in a few sentances so as to get this going. I have never created an article before (only edited), and am not completely familiar with wiki etiquette, so I apologize if I might have gone off format.

I feel that the notion of gestell is sufficiently important in Heidegger's work so as to merit the creation of a wikipedia article on it. Kevin L. 06:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re ETYMOLOGY

An excellent article, Kevin! Do not let anybody discourage you by labelling it a "stub". Your endeavor is all the more laudable as no article on Gestell (OHG gistelli, collect. of OHG stal, a position or site, esp., a place for animals) can be found as yet in the German WP, and even the French, who after all brought Heidegger back from oblivion, have in their own WP failed so far to give the great philosopher his due on this important point. If, therefore, you could find some good translators, it would not be a bad idea to branch out, so to say.
I hope you do not find it too presumptious if I take this opportunity to make a suggestion as to the text itself: You know, of course, that the term Gestell, in the sense (far removed from the German Umgangssprache) used in Heidegger's writings, entered the Professor's vocabulary only at a very late date. And you will no doubt be familiar with the delightful story that goes with this fact. But as I cannot imagine that everybody is so well versed in the intricacies of the German language and the Professor's biography, I think it would only be fair on your part to share your knowledge also with the less privileged of your readers. I shall, of course, always be at your disposal if you have any questions on this subject. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I ascertain that you are very well acquainted with Heidegger's work, as well as his notion of Gestell. I, unfortunately, cannot say the same of myself. As a student I have come across the term and have written some on it, but my knowledge of Heidegger and Gestell is very limited. As such, I think it would be great if you wanted to contribute to this article, or "stub". If you wanted to go into more depth as to the meaning and use of the term both in and out of Heidegger, as well as Heidegger's acquisition of the term.

Technology, from what I have come to understand, became a "major" aspect of Heidegger's later work. Thence it seems appropriate that Gestell be noted as important, as it is a central concept within Heidegger's writings regarding knowledge. I found it strange that Gestell barely be noted in the main article of Heidegger, but felt that it was innappropriate to ammend the article with a substantial section regarding the term, and felt that it would do as a standalone article.

Once again, I welcome you to contribute any of your knowledge regarding Gestell and its usage in Heidegger and philosophy in general. --Kevin L. 06:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re CONTRIBUTION. Thank you for your kind invitation, Kevin. If by "contribute" you mean that I should participate in literally writing the article, I'd have to decline the offer. But if you are interested in advice and hints on how to procede I shall always be glad to help. You could then expect something like this:
Think of Marburg an der Lahn, 1924! or
Think of how conversation was enframed where Heidegger grew up. Upon meeting someone, say a Mr Pfleiderer, Heidegger would have said very slowly: "Ah, der Pfleiderer, so so". To which Mr Pfleiderer would have replied in the same tone: "Ja, der Herr Professor Heidegger, ja ja, so so." In other parts of Germany however, let's say in Königsberg, a woman might have said to her daughter "Schau Dir an das Gestell!" every time they would meet somebody.
You'd have to take it from there, Kevin. Yes, I call this a contribution. And yes, I am serious. Have a nice weekend! --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this article is that it defines gestell by invoking gestell. It really says nothing of the essence of technology, or what enframing is. -A F J