Braucht Kunst eigentlich eine Heimat?

Jedes Ding hat seinen Usprung und irgendwie auch das Bedürfnis zu ihm zurückzukehren. Das νόστος, die Rückkehr ist dafür das erste Beispiel in der europäischen Kunst. Towards the end of the Odyssey I mostly love the recognition-scenes with the dog Argos and the nurse Eurycleia. I find them very touching and they may be the first examples in literature, in which man shows affection for an animal or a “lower” class human being.
Philosophy or art (in particular) have always to concrete themselves in the reality of being. (Sein ist immer ein Sein des Seienden. )

I wrote about the “setting back on earth” of the art and how Heidegger describes and understands art in the aftermath of Hölderlin’s poetology. But even philosophy has to have a “home”. Very illuminating in this context is the etymological connection of the German word “Heimat” “home” with ancient Greek. The word for village κωμη is related to the verb κειμαι “to lay” in the sense of underlying. {The “K” becomes regullary a “H” in germanic like κυνός a hound, “Hund” (ε)κατό hundred ect.} So the home or “Heimat” is something, that underlies basically everything. By the way: From that verb κειμαι derives modern Greek υποκείμενο the original “object”, which became through its translation into Latin and medieval scholasticism, I don’t know exactly “how”, the opposite, the “subject”. This sounds strange, but it is the case. A clear example of “Seinsvergessenheit”.
And to give further proof: The relation between the word for “village” and “to lay” is exactly the same in Standard Arabic:قرية qariat “village” comes from رقود raquud (to lay).{ It is also “etymological” related to Greek, i.e the words have the same origin in Noachic, but I can’t give the proof here, it’s becoming too complicate}

These are things, which are very, very basic to the human condition of “Dasein” and are absolutely independent from “culture” or whatever, but show up very clearly in primordial languages. Interesting is also the relation between the word for “child” in Standard Arabic طِفْل (tifl) the irregular plural is even clearerأطفال (adtfaal) and the verb فعل (fa’la) “to make”. We have a striking analogy to this in classical Greek. The word for “art” τέχνη is related to the noun τέκνον “child” an the verb τεκνοποιέομαι “to create children”. So “producing” a child or a piece of art is something “purposefully”. The much later meaning of the term “technology”, how a modern engineer would understand it, is already “in” there. This leads to the questions of teleology how Kant understood it (Kritik der teleologischen Urteilskraft), but goes much too far for here.
Back to the actual question: Philosophy and art in particular have always to have its “Wiederschein” “re-appearance” in a concrete person. i.e. an Italian, a French, an Arab, a German an so on. At the very end of globalization, when you have a total abstraction of the human being, this also means the final victory of nihilism. People will not understand any more, what that used to be, art or philosophy, and nothing at all will be achieved any more on those fields. You may find this attitude far too pessimistic? But surely not, if you would have fully understood the essence of nihilism and of all the things, that are involved in that. I can only make very vague allusions, but you would think different.

To give a last summary of my point: I’m looking on things from their results. Heideggers thinking was very fruitful. He gives us a very interesting insight into the problem of technology and in deep, deep relationship to that an interpretation of the problem of nihilism. Why did the pre-Christian Greeks did not know that problem? They didn’t know creativeness. A single good, that created the whole world. And coming back to my first article here: That’s of course the big difference between Heidegger and Kabbala.

To make things clear: creativeness can lead to nihilism, not has to. And for not becoming accused of “prejudice“ I will therefore not writing about the gloomy nihilistic consequences of the late Kabbala, (which I consider as one, if not the greatest achievement of mankind), but instead, I will try to write some words about the Theology of Paulus, which is a clear example of creativeness and nihilism. But for that I have to re-read a little his letters on the Korinths, Hebrews and so on. By the way: Not many know, that from Paulus we have the first an oldest information on Jesus.
This is a board about philosophy, but I think I have the right to promote my texts here a little, because all my writing is only understandable with an heideggerian/hölderlinean background and thinking. I look on art as the setting into work of the truth.
I don’t get them published, because I’m living in the most intimidated country of the world, Germany.

My second text, which I translated into English “the magic store” is about the essence of globalisation i.e. nihilism. Guess someone, what “the huge magic wand” means? A little riddle for you all. “Everyone knows its name”.
My first text, which I translated into English was “In cage happiness”. It is about “the anthropological problem”, how Heidegger put it, and in the aftermath Sloterdyjk.

It’s all on my website https://leuchtspuren.org

Stephanos Zwi