DOCSLIB.ORG

HAAS, ALEXANDER, MA August 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HAAS, ALEXANDER, MA August 2020 HAAS, ALEXANDER, M.A. August 2020 PHILOSOPHY MARION, HEIDEGGER, AND THE QUESTION OF GIVENNESS (74 pp.) Thesis Advisor: Gina Zavota In Being Given, Jean-Luc Marion claims that Heidegger errs in subordinating the givenness of phenomena to Ereignis, unduly restricting the ways in which phenomena can be said to “give themselves”. The problem, however, is that without this stricture, we are unable to make certain distinctions that are indispensable for understanding phenomena in the diversity of their appearing. Take, for example, technological phenomena (e.g., televisions, radios, computers, etc.) On Marion’s account, these phenomena give themselves; show themselves insofar as they give themselves. But is this really giving, or instead, a kind of intrusion, a permeating of our space by technological phenomena? What Marion is missing, is a robust account of the context, or better, the locus of apparition that allows us to differentiate the ways in which phenomena show up. I will argue that Heidegger’s notion of Ereignis is such a locus. MARION, HEIDEGGER, AND THE QUESTION OF GIVENNESS A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Alexander Haas August 2020 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Thesis written by Alexander Haas B.A., Kent State University, 2015 M.A. Kent State University, 2020 Approved by _______________________________, Advisor Gina Zavota _______________________________, Chair, Department of Philosophy Michael Byron _______________________________, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Mandy Munro-Stasiuk TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………...iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iv CHAPTERS 1. Jean Luc Marion’s Phenomenology of Givenness §1 Introduction……………....……..………...…………………………………………....1 §2 Phenomenology, Science, and Method…..…………………………………………….2 §3 Phenomenology and Principles………......…………….……………………………....6 §4 Husserl and Objectness……………..…………..……………………………………...8 §5 Heidegger and Being…………………………………………………………………...9 §6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……..….18 2. Heidegger on Being and Ereignis §1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...20 §2 The Kerhe and Overcoming Metaphysics…………………………………………….20 §3 Es Gibt and the Givenness of Being and Time……………………………………….25 §4 Es Gibt as Ereignis……………………………………………………………………30 §5 Philosophy and Thinking……………………………………………………………..34 §6 Thinking and Metaphor………………………………………………………………39 §7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………43 3. Marion, Heidegger, and Givenness §1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...44 §2 Unconditional Givenness……………………………………………………………..44 §3 The Universality of Givenness………………………………………………………..51 §4 Equipmental Phenomena……………………………………………………………..53 §5 Technological Phenomena……………………………………………………………57 §6 Towards a Heideggerian Account of Givenness……………………………………...60 §7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………70 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..72 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Gina Zavota, for all the time and effort she has put into this project. Her patience with me boggles the mind. I will always be grateful for the support and encouragement she has shown me. I would also like to thank my examining committee: Dr. Michael Byron, Dr. Benjamin Berger, and Dr. Joanna Trzeciak-Huss for reading and commenting on my work. I also want to thank Alex Martin. You’ll get over Camus. I also want to thank Zach Nickels. While he’ll never endorse the arguments contained herein, I hope he sees that we are working on the same problem from different sides. I also want to thank Will Fenton. We’ll make it through Kant together someday. I also want to thank Moad Aldabbagh. His singular focus is something I’ve tried to emulate. I also want to thank Kevin Lower. His friendship has meant the world to me. I also want to thank Dr. Kwang-Sae Lee, for whom I am still rewriting my seminar papers. Lastly, I would like to thank Václava Hazuková. That my idiosyncrasies have not driven her away is truly miraculous. iv 1 Jean Luc Marion’s Phenomenology of Givenness §1 Introduction In his 1997 monograph Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, Jean-Luc Marion aims to “make possible a revival of phenomenology,” to demonstrate the relevance of this philosophical movement that has fallen out of favor in recent years.1 Marion attempts to make good on this aim by liberating phenomenology from the two horizons that have come to define it in the textbooks: objectness and Being.2 To move beyond these horizons, as Marion claims, is to acknowledge that not all phenomena show up as objects or beings. Consequently, the sort of phenomenological revival Marion has in mind hinges on the possibility of a departure, our being able to dispense with, and get along without, the strictures one finds in the work of both Husserl and Heidegger.3 But there is a danger in this, of which Marion is no doubt acutely aware, that in dispensing with these horizons, one may also be dispensing with phenomenology itself.4 Marion’s task then is a fairly straightforward one: he must demonstrate the way in which phenomenology is thinkable apart from both objectness and Being; that is, he must demonstrate the inability of objectness and Being to exhaust the essence of phenomenology.5 As the title of his book indicates, Marion conceives of the essence of phenomenology in terms of “givenness,” and the task of phenomenology as attending to phenomena as they give 1 Marion, Jean Luc. Being Given: Towards a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffery L. Kosky (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002), p. xiv; BG hereafter. 2 Ibid., xiv. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 1 themselves in experience.6 Towards the beginning of this text, Marion explains that we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that givenness constitutes the essence of phenomenology, for givenness is a theme that we find running through the work of both Husserl and Heidegger.7 Despite the prevalence of this theme, however, Marion’s position received quite a bit of opposition, with thinkers such as Ricoeur and Derrida contesting his claim.8 In order to firmly establish its legitimacy, Marion traces the genesis of the concept of givenness in the work of Husserl, and explores its modification and development in the work of Heidegger. Challenging Marion’s reading of Heidegger, this essay pushes back on his suggestion that Heidegger consigns givenness to the horizon of Being. While he might appear to do so, a careful consideration of his later work shows Heidegger to have abandoned the sort of ontological inquiry that would justify Marion’s claim. Anticipating a bit, Marion accuses Heidegger of forsaking givenness insofar as he interprets the idiomatic expression ‘es gibt’9 by way of the term ‘Ereignis’.10 11 Failing to appreciate his nuanced use of ‘Ereignis,’ Marion mistakenly asserts that Heidegger understands the phenomenality of phenomena ontologically.12 But this is not the case. Throughout the course of this essay, I will defend Heidegger against Marion’s charge. Specifically, I will argue that Heidegger not only abandons the horizon of Being, but also provides us with a non-metaphysical conception of givenness, one that does justice to the things whose antics give rise to world. §2 Phenomenology, Science, and Method 6 Ibid., 3. 7 Ibid., 2. 8 Ibid., 3. 9 In German, ‘es gibt’ is an idiomatic expression roughly equivalent to the English ‘there is’. Literally, however, the phrase means ‘it gives’. 10 The German term ‘Ereignis’ is similar to the English ‘event’. But as we will see, Heidegger does not always use the term this way. 11 Ibid., 34. 12 Ibid. 2 Before we tread this ground, however, it may prove useful to start with a brief sketch of Marion’s take on phenomenology. Doing so will put us in a better position to make sense of the way in which he both stands in a certain proximity to, and yet, ultimately distances himself from, Heidegger. Marion begins by distinguishing phenomenology from the natural sciences.13 In Ideas, Husserl had described phenomenology as the science of consciousness.14 According to Marion, this sort of determination on the part of Husserl, and his followers, radically misconstrues the nature of phenomenology; losing sight of what is decisive, they miss the breakthrough that it makes possible.15 Science, Marion claims, is inseparable from proving, and is inextricably tied up with rigorous demonstration.16 Fixing phenomena in place so as to make them indubitable, science situates their appearance in a rational foundation that is beyond dispute.17 Phenomenology, on the other hand, breaks with this familiar procedure. Marion explains that while science contents itself with proving, phenomenology concerns itself with showing.18 Instead of prejudging phenomena by the benchmark of certainty, phenomenology attempts to let “appearances appear in such a way that they accomplish their own apparition,” that is, it aims at receiving phenomena as they give themselves in experience.19 Consequently, Marion argues that “phenomenology has no other goal and no other legitimacy than to attempt to reach the apparition in appearance”.20 Here, according to Marion, we hit upon the fundamental paradox of phenomenology: “that it takes the initiative in losing it;” more precisely, that it effaces itself before phenomena, 13 Ibid., 7. 14 Husserl, Edmund. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson (New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 63; I hereafter. 15 BG
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heidegger, Being and Time
    Heidegger's Being and Time 1 Karsten Harries Heidegger's Being and Time Seminar Notes Spring Semester 2014 Yale University Heidegger's Being and Time 2 Copyright Karsten Harries [email protected] Heidegger's Being and Time 3 Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Ontology and Fundamental Ontology 16 3. Methodological Considerations 30 4. Being-in-the-World 43 5. The World 55 6. Who am I? 69 7. Understanding, Interpretation, Language 82 8. Care and Truth 96 9. The Entirety of Dasein 113 10. Conscience, Guilt, Resolve 128 11. Time and Subjectivity 145 12. History and the Hero 158 13. Conclusion 169 Heidegger's Being and Time 4 1. Introduction 1 In this seminar I shall be concerned with Heidegger's Being and Time. I shall refer to other works by Heidegger, but the discussion will center on Being and Time. In reading the book, some of you, especially those with a reading knowledge of German, may find the lectures of the twenties helpful, which have appeared now as volumes of the Gesamtausgabe. Many of these have by now been translated. I am thinking especially of GA 17 Einführung in die phänomenologische Forschung (1923/24); Introduction to Phenomenological Research, trans. Daniel O. Dahlstrom (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2005) GA 20 Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs (1925); History of the Concept of Time, trans. Theodore Kisiel (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985) GA 21 Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit (1925/26). Logic: The Question of Truth, trans. Thomas Sheehan GA 24 Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie (1927); The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr
    Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR https://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/05/beyond-westphalia-rethinking-fundamental-ontology-in-ir/ ANDREAS AAGAARD NOHR, JUL 5 2012 ‘Our task is to broaden our reasoning to make it capable of grasping what, in ourselves and others, precedes and exceeds reason’ – Maurice Merleau-Ponty[1] The Western philosophical tradition has been entrenched in a particular understanding of human beings by Plato’s love for theory. Theory, the notion that the universe can be understood in a detached and abstract way, by finding the principles that underlie the abundance of phenomena was surely powerful. And in effect, Plato held that we could have a theory of everything, even human beings and their relation to the world.[2] Man had to crawl out of the cave, where his existence had been meek shadow imagery. To be sure, this means that Plato had an implicit theory of how human beings relate to things. As such, the tradition has been build on the basic understanding of human beings as subjects contemplating, or relating to, objects. Man is a cogito, a thinking subject – a rational animal – in a world of objects. The consequence of this assumption is a categorical split between the mind and the world. So much becomes clear in the philosophy of René Descartes, who tried to doubt everything until there was only one thing he could not doubt: his own existence.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz Heidegger
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ HEIDEGGER: ONTOLOGICAL POLITICS TO TECHNOLOGICAL POLITICS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in PHILOSOPHY by Javier Cardoza-Kon June 2014 The dissertation of Javier Cardoza-Kon is approved: ____________________________________ Professor David C. Hoy, chair ____________________________________ Professor Abraham Stone ____________________________________ Carlos A. Sanchez, Ph.D. _____________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Javier Cardoza-Kon 2014 Table of Contents Abstract. iv Dedication. v Introduction. 1 Chapter 1: Cultural Identity and Two Politics. 14 Chapter 2: Polemos, Auseinandersetzung, and Unconcealment. 50 Chapter 3: Auseiandersetzung, Nietzsche, and the Politics of Nihilism. 77 Chapter 4: Technology and We Late-Moderns. 113 Conclusion: Heidegger’s in the Contemporary World. 160 Bibliography and Abbreviations of Cited Material 173 iii Abstract Heidegger: Ontological Politics to Technological Politics. By Javier Cardoza-Kon As Heidegger himself has done with Nietzsche in claiming that he will articulate what Nietzsche meant but never said metaphysically, I also do with Heidegger in terms of politics. On my reading there are two kinds of politics in Heidegger’s middle and late thought that are, for the most part, murky and confused. There is a politics of ontology the deals with the encountering and articulating of what beings are and what Being itself is. There is also a politics on the more familiar level of societies and the policies that different groups establish and follow. It is in terms of the second type of politics that Heidegger is most often attacked, and for good reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Ethics at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Environmental Philosophy*
    Inquiry, 47, 380–412 Ontology and Ethics at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Environmental Philosophy* Iain Thomson University of New Mexico The idea inspiring the eco-phenomenological movement is that phenomenology can help remedy our environmental crisis by uprooting and replacing environmentally- destructive ethical and metaphysical presuppositions inherited from modern philosophy. Eco-phenomenology’s critiques of subject/object dualism and the fact/value divide are sketched and its positive alternatives examined. Two competing approaches are discerned within the eco-phenomenological movement: Nietzscheans and Husserlians propose a naturalistic ethical realism in which good and bad are ultimately matters of fact, and values should be grounded in these proto- ethical facts; Heideggerians and Levinasians articulate a transcendental ethical realism according to which we discover what really matters when we are appropriately open to the environment, but what we thereby discover is a transcendental source of meaning that cannot be reduced to facts, values, or entities of any kind. These two species of ethical realism generate different kinds of ethical perfectionism: naturalistic ethical realism yields an eco-centric perfectionism which stresses the flourishing of life in general; transcendental ethical realism leads to a more ‘humanistic’ perfectionism which emphasizes the cultivation of distinctive traits of Dasein. Both approaches are examined, and the Heideggerian strand of the humanistic approach defended, since it approaches the best elements of the eco-centric view while avoiding its problematic ontological assumptions and anti-humanistic implications. I. Introduction: Uncovering the Conceptual Roots of Environmental Devastation What happens when you cross phenomenology with environmental philoso- phy? According to the editors of Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself, you get an important interdisciplinary movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Overturning the Paradigm of Identity with Gilles Deleuze's Differential
    A Thesis entitled Difference Over Identity: Overturning the Paradigm of Identity With Gilles Deleuze’s Differential Ontology by Matthew G. Eckel Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy Dr. Ammon Allred, Committee Chair Dr. Benjamin Grazzini, Committee Member Dr. Benjamin Pryor, Committee Member Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2014 An Abstract of Difference Over Identity: Overturning the Paradigm of Identity With Gilles Deleuze’s Differential Ontology by Matthew G. Eckel Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy The University of Toledo May 2014 Taking Gilles Deleuze to be a philosopher who is most concerned with articulating a ‘philosophy of difference’, Deleuze’s thought represents a fundamental shift in the history of philosophy, a shift which asserts ontological difference as independent of any prior ontological identity, even going as far as suggesting that identity is only possible when grounded by difference. Deleuze reconstructs a ‘minor’ history of philosophy, mobilizing thinkers from Spinoza and Nietzsche to Duns Scotus and Bergson, in his attempt to assert that philosophy has always been, underneath its canonical manifestations, a project concerned with ontology, and that ontological difference deserves the kind of philosophical attention, and privilege, which ontological identity has been given since Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger's Basic Assumptions
    Daniel O. Dahlstrom Heidegger’s Basic Assumptions If we improve our understanding of ordinary talk of physical things, it will not be by reducing that talk to a more familiar idiom; there is none. It will be by clarifying the connections, causal or otherwise, between ordinary talk of physical things and various further matters, which in turn we grasp with help of ordinary talk of physical things. W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object1 In Being and Time Heidegger sets out from three assumptions: first, that we generally have some understanding of what it means to be, some sense of being; second, that this understanding matters to us and, in an essential way, constitutes our manner of being; and third, that we are capable of giving an appropriate analysis or interpretation of this understanding.2 These are by no means the only suppositions driving the project begun in Being and Time but they certainly figure among its most basic assumptions. The first of these assumptions is Heidegger’s „preontological“ and „preexistential“ assumption, the second his „existential“ assumption, and the third his „ontological“ assumption. These basic assumptions, moreover, exhibit an order that is equally basic to Heidegger’s project at the time. The existential assumption presupposes the preontological assumption and his fundamental ontology presupposes the existential character of our preontological sense of being. Despite an increasing appreciation of the relevance of many of Heidegger’s investigations to concerns of contemporary analytic philosophers, these basic assumptions continue to be roundly viewed with a mixture of suspicion and bemusement. It would be extremely difficult – and no attempt will be made here – to give an adequate explanation of all the reasons for this recalcitrance.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Heidegger on Aletheia (Truth) As Unconcealment
    Martin Heidegger on Aletheia (Truth) as Unconcealment https://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Martin Heidegger on Aletheia (Truth) as Unconcealment PRELIMINARY NOTE In its initial form this section will offer five pages on Martin Heidegger (the first two are contributions to the History of Truth): 1) Heidegger's contributions to the interpretation of the Greek word for Truth (Aletheia) as Unconcealment and to the history of his translation in Latin as Veritas; 2) An annotated bibliography of Heidegger's texts on Aletheia and a selection of critical studies; 3) Heidegger's contributions to the interpretation of the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology; 4) An annotated bibliography of Heidegger's texts on the History of Metaphysics as Ontotheology and a selection of critical studies; 5) A complete list of Heidegger's German works published in the Gesamtausgabe (Collected Works Edition). INTRODUCTION "We come now to a decisive point in Heidegger's development. The effort to ground metaphysics (fundamental ontology) began as a search to illuminate the intrinsic correlation between the Being-process as such and the finitude of the being that comprehends it, sc. There-being. The first step (Sein und Zeit) was to analyse There-being phenomenologically in order to find in the pre-ontic comprehension of Being some means of discerning the sense of Being. Subsequently the author has become more and more preoccupied with Being itself, but chiefly in terms of the problem of truth, since the sense of Being is its truth. The growing importance of the problematic of truth is discernible in all of the works that followed SZ and culminates now in the essay "On the Essence of Truth," where Heidegger thematizes the problem, retaining as intrinsic to it the 1 di 10 05/01/2019, 18:26 Martin Heidegger on Aletheia (Truth) as Unconcealment https://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm problem of finitude, sc.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger's Project
    Heidegger’s Project 7 1 Heidegger’s Project In his 1935 summer semester lecture course at the University of Freiburg, entitled “Introduction to Metaphysics,” Heidegger asks a seemingly innocuous question: “How does it stand with being?,” or, translated in a colloquial sense: “How’s it going with being?” (IM, 41)1 The answer is: not well. Today, humankind is consumed by an instrumental relationship with beings; we have closed off other world- views, forcing all beings—including humans—to show up or reveal themselves in only one way, as objects to be effi ciently manipulated and controlled. The prognosis, according to Heidegger, is bleak. In an oft-quoted passage from these lectures, he gives his assessment: The spiritual decline of the earth has progressed so far that people are in danger of losing their last spiritual strength, the strength that makes it possible even to see the decline and to appraise it as such. This simple observation has nothing to do with cultural pessimism—nor with any opti- mism either, of course; for the darkening of the world, the fl ight of the gods, the destruction of the earth, the reduc- tion of human beings into a mass, the hatred and mistrust of everything creative and free has already reached such proportions throughout the whole earth that such childish categories as pessimism and optimism have become laugh- able. (IM, 40–41) Heidegger refers to this modern predicament as “nihilism.” Nihil- ism shows itself when the “question of being” (Seinsfrage) is forgotten and humankind is concerned with the world only as a vast storehouse of beings to be used.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sporting Exploration of the World: Toward a Fundamental Ontology of the Sporting Human Being
    This file was dowloaded from the institutional repository Brage NIH - brage.bibsys.no/nih Breivik, G. (2019). The Sporting Exploration of the World: Toward a Fundamental Ontology of the Sporting Human Being. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 14(2), 146-162 Dette er siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde små forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du her: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2019.1572214 This is the final text version of the article, and it may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version. The original publication is available here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2019.1572214 The sporting exploration of the world; towards a fundamental ontology of the sporting human being ABSTRACT My goal in this article is to give a portrait of how modern sport philosophy, which started in 1972, developed from relatively narrow paradigmatic borders to become a diverse and multi- paradigmatic international discipline. This development has included several changes but also some continuity. I identify three main tenets that may be viable in the future. One is to focus on the traditional sport philosophical paradigm, which had an ambition to identify the essence of sport. A second option is to develop more specific approaches, focusing on single sports or types of sport, like football or climbing. A third alternative is to develop a philosophy, not only of sport but of ‘homo movens’, studying the moving human being in different environmental and socio-cultural contexts. All three options are viable and should be welcomed. KEYWORDS: Sport philosophy, historical development, diversification, future, identity Introduction My perspective in this article will be to look at sport and other physical activities as a way of exploring and experimenting with the environing world.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger on the Unity of Metaphysics and The
    Final Draft Please do not cite without permission. HEIDEGGER ON THE UNITY OF METAPHYSICS AND THE METHOD OF BEING AND TIME Gilad Nir Forthcoming in The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 74: 3 (March 2021). Abstract The fundamental error of the metaphysical tradition, according to Heidegger, is the subordination of general ontology to the ontology of a special, exemplary entity (God, the soul, etc.). But Being and Time itself treats one kind of entity as exemplary, namely Dasein. Does this mean that Heidegger fails to free himself from the kind of metaphysics that he sought to criticize? To show how he avoids this charge I propose to examine the parallels between the methodology of Being and Time and the methodology Heidegger ascribes to Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Heidegger takes the virtue of Aristotle’s inquiry to reside in the way he resists the subordination of general to special ontology: Aristotle was guided by a “double concept” of metaphysics, pursued two irreducibly distinct methods of inquiry, and avoided the temptation to unite them. In proposing to similarly pursue a “double task” in Being and Time Heidegger seeks to apply this insight to his own work. Alongside the task of fundamental ontology, Heidegger spells out the shape of a second task, Destruktion, understood as a historical critique that traces ontological concepts back to their ontic roots. But Destruktion is not a mere addendum to fundamental ontology; the two tasks are meant to counterbalance one another and thereby prevent the collapse of the ontological difference between being and beings. Indeed, Heidegger proposes to apply Destruktion to the results of his own fundamental ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of Heidegger NEW HEIDEGGER RESEARCH
    Making Sense of Heidegger NEW HEIDEGGER RESEARCH Series Editors Gregory Fried, Professor of Philosophy, Suffolk University, USA Richard Polt, Professor of Philosophy, Xavier University, USA The New Heidegger Research series promotes informed and critical dialogue that breaks new philosophical ground by taking into account the full range of Heidegger’s thought, as well as the enduring questions raised by his work. Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift, Thomas Sheehan After the Greeks, Laurence Paul Hemming (forthcoming) Heidegger and the Environment, Casey Rentmeester (forthcoming) Making Sense of Heidegger A Paradigm Shift Thomas Sheehan London • New York Published by Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB www.rowmaninternational.com Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada), and Plymouth (UK) www.rowman.com Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Sheehan All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: HB 978-1-78348-118-7 PB 978-1-78348-119-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sheehan, Thomas. Making sense of Heidegger : a paradigm shift / Thomas Sheehan. pages cm. — (New Heidegger research) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78348-118-7 (cloth : alk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Overturning of Heidegger's Fundamental Ontology
    *Author’s manuscript of paper published in the Journal of Philosophical Research, 2016: https://www.pdcnet.org/jpr/content/jpr_2016_0999_8_17_88 The Overturning of Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology James Osborn [email protected] Abstract: In this paper I argue that the central issue in Heidegger’s path of thought from Being and Time to Contributions and beyond is what he will later call “the matter itself”: neither the meaning of being nor the analysis of Dasein but a transformational encounter in the margins of fundamental ontology. Heidegger’s account of temporality and transcendence from the late 1920s is a clue to the transformation, but it is not until the completion of fundamental ontology in the naming of ontological difference that he arrives at a crisis which performs the transformation and announces the “overturning.” This interpretation revolves around a reading of Heidegger’s 1929 treatise “On the Essence of Ground” in which the text and subsequent marginal notes prepare the transition from Being and Time to Contributions, from Sein to Seyn, and from ontological difference to its appropriation. Thus we find that the language of Ereignis beginning in the 1930s and whatever we might call the “turn” signal the doing of justice to the original task from Being and Time. 1 THE OVERTURNING I would say that [Being and Time] is not an advertisement for a new panacea which one could or should try out, but is the name for a task, for a way of working whereby we can perhaps once again become worthy of venturing a confrontation with real philosophy in its core.
    [Show full text]