The Passing of the World

Heidegger asserted that only a post-aesthetic approach to, or thinking about, art, or anything designed, can allow a human to recognise the truth in art and to see the almost invisible and tiny ways in which art guides us in assessing what is, and what of that which is actually matters. Basically, he asserted that the aesthetic approach got in the way of a real reaction to art by humans and that it also obscured the part that art plays in forming our world views.

I think that you use Heideggers approach to aethetics rather well in this article but you do fail to point out that he never actually proved his thesis about aesthetics because he ignored the fact that his critique of aesthetics was, already and justifiably, part of the aesthetic approach to art and always had been.It had been accepted since Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten first appropriated the word 'aesthetics' (Metaphysics #451) to its philosophical use (that is, as we use it here) in the eighteenth century. Tolstoy (What is Art, 1897) criticised Baumgarten's approach in a way that has become institutionalised as valid when, in fact, Tolstoy was expressing a linguistic philosopher's approach to Baumgarten's work and really said nothing of value about aesthetics.

Indeed, many people point out that Heidegger strayed dangerously close to 'historical functionalism' in his approach to aesthetics and ignored the implications of 'historical narrativism' - if he even thought about the implications, or was even aware of the difference between 'functionalism' and 'narrativism' in his discourse.

Finally, I think that you are wrong in your antipenultimate paragraph - there is every reason to fall out with those who simply do not care. To associate with them may improve your conversational skills, but such associations will numb your mind and blunt your critical faculties - it's never fun to attempt to converse with the hard of thinking!