SPANNING THE GAP: HEIDEGGER’S SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF TRANSCENDENCE AND HIS CRITIQUE OF MODERN SUBJECTIVITY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY EMRAH GÜNOK IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY SEPTEMBER 2012 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha ALTUNIŞIK Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Ahmet İNAM Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Çırakman Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Ahmet İnam (METU, PHIL) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Çırakman (METU, PHIL) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Çetin Türkyılmaz (H. U., PHIL) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ertuğrul R. Turan (A.U., PHIL) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan (METU, PHIL) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Emrah GÜNOK Signature : iii ABSTRACT SPANNING THE GAP: HEIDEGGER’S SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF TRANSCENDENCE AND HIS CRITIQUE OF MODERN SUBJECTIVITY GÜNOK, Emrah Ph.D., Department of Philosophy Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif ÇIRAKMAN September 2012, 330 pages This study aims at exhibiting the strong correlation between the question of subjectivity and the question of being. If the question of subjectivity is to be formulated in terms of the relation between the inner realm of consciousness and the outer world, then the question will have an epistemological form and becomes the question of the objectivity of our knowledge. In the dissertation, however, it will be claimed with the German philosopher Martin Heidegger that the critical stand taken against the subject-object schema of the Cartesian epistemology must be of an ontological kind, and should criticize the substantial difference between the two realms of being. iv In order to fulfill the aforementioned task, Dasein as the entity which is capable of asking the question of being will be claimed to be the ontological condition of possibility for something like subjectivity. By the help of the phenomenological concept of Dasein, we will claim that the most neutral and basic being-in-the-world of human beings is not cognizing or perceiving things, but caring for them. The last objective we hope to fulfill in this study is to show that the only question of philosophy for Heidegger, i.e., the question of being, can first become comprehensible when the philosopher’s investigations of the modern philosophy have been well examined. It is our contention that, unless thedead-ends of the modern philosophy of subjectivity is apprehended well enough, the obligation of asking the question of being as such cannot be felt. Key Words: Being, Dasein, subject, transcendence, intentionality v ÖZ YARIĞI KAPATMAK: HEIDEGGER’İN AŞKINLIK PROBLEMİNE ÖNERDİĞİ ÇÖZÜM VE MODERN ÖZNELLİK ELEŞTİRİSİ GÜNOK, Emrah Doktora, Felsefe Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Elif ÇIRAKMAN Eylül 2012, 330 sayfa Bu çalışmada özne sorunsalı ile varlık sorusu arasındaki bağıntı ele alınacaktır. Özne sorunsalı olarak betimlenen felsefi problem bilincin içkin alanı ile dış dünya arasındaki ilişki sorusu olarak anlaşıldığında, bu tip bir formülasyonun bilgimizin nesnellik koşullarını konu edinen epistemolojik bir biçime sahip olduğu sonucunu çıkartmak mümkün görünmektedir. Buna karşın bu çalışmada, Alman filozof Martin Heidegger ile beraber Kartezyen epistemolojinin özne-nesne şemasına karşı takınılacak kritik tavrın ontolojik bir tavır olması gerektiği vurgulanacak, sözkonusu iki varlık alanı arasındaki tözsel farklılık eleştiriye tâbî tutulacaktır. Yukarıda dile getirilen amacı gerçekleştirmek üzere varlık sorusunu sorabilen tek antite olarak Dasein’ın öznelliğin ontolojik koşulu olduğu iddiası savunulacaktır. vi Feomenolojik bir kavram olan Dasein yardımıyla insanın dünyadaki en temel ve en yalın varoluşunun bilme ya da algılama değil, ihtimam gösterme olduğu iddiası dile getirilecektir. Vurgulamak istediğimiz son bir husus da, Heidegger için felsefenin tek sorusu, yani varlık sorusunun gerçek manada kavranabilmesinin önkoşulunu, filozofun modern felsefe araştırmalarının dikkatli bir biçimde incelenmesi olarak dikkate sunmaktır. İnancımız odur ki, modern özne felsefesinin çıkmazları gerçek anlamda kavranmadıkça, varlık sorusunu sormanın önem ve aciliyetini hissetmek dahi olası değildir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Varlık, Dasein, özne, aşkınlık, yönelimsellik vii To My Sister viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Çırakman for her guidance, advice, criticism, encouragements and valuable insight throughout the research. I would also like to express my gratitude to other members of the jury: Prof. Dr. Ahmet İnam, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ertuğrul R. Turan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Barış Parkan, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Çetin Türkyılmaz for their suggestions and comments. I am also grateful to my family and to Erdem Taner for their invaluable support and passion throughout this process. Finally, I would like to thank my friend Gülşah Namlı who has carefully read various drafts of this dissertation and suggested certain corrections. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM .................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... iv ÖZ...................................................................................................................... vi DEDICATION ................................................................................................ viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 2. PHENOMENOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY ...... 13 2.1. Heidegger’s Debt to Husserl ............................................................. 14 2.1.1. Intentionality ........................................................................... 14 2.1.2. Categorial Intuition ................................................................. 24 2.1.3. The Original Sense of the A priori ......................................... 35 2.2. Heidegger’s Critique of Husserl ....................................................... 38 2.2.1. The General Thesis of the Natural Attitude ............................ 39 2.2.2. The Residuum of the Phenomenological Reduction .............. 46 2.2.3. The Difference between the Immanent and the Transcendent56 x 3. FROM TRANSCENDENTAL SUBJECT TO DASEIN: RADICALIZATION OF INTENTIONALITY ................................................ 65 3.1. Enframing Phenomenology as the Method of Ontology .................. 66 3.1.1. Phenomenological Conception of Phenomenon ..................... 66 3.1.2. Positioning Logos vis-à-vis the Original Phenomenon .......... 72 3.1.3. The Task of Phenomenology .................................................. 75 3.2. Dasein’s Relation to Truth ................................................................ 77 3.2.1. The Traditional Conception of Truth ...................................... 79 3.2.2. Ontological Interpretation of Proposition: Critique of Lotze . 83 3.2.3. Refutation of Psychologism .................................................... 90 3.2.4. Need for a “Philosophical Logic” ........................................... 94 3.2.5. Disclosedness of Dasein as the Primordial Sense of Truth .... 98 3.3. Originary Transcendence and Being-in-the-World ........................ 107 3.3.1. Ontic and Ontological Transcendence .................................. 107 3.3.2. “That which is Transcended” in the Originary Transcendence and the Ontological Difference ....................................................... 113 3.3.3. Existence: “The Who” of Originary Transcendence ............ 119 3.3.4. World: “The Whither” of Originary Transcendence ............ 127 4. HEIDEGGER’S DECONSTRUCTIVE READING OF THE TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHY: CARTESIAN AND KANTIAN CONCEPTIONS OF THE SUBJECT............................................................. 136 4.1. The Problem of Self in Cartesian Ontology.................................... 137 4.1.1. Ego as Esse Certum .............................................................. 138 4.1.2. The Logical Structure of Cogito, Ergo Sum ......................... 143 xi 4.1.3. Cogito Sum from the Perspective of Transcendental Philosophy ...................................................................................... 150 4.1.3.1. Phenomenality of the Cogito ...................................... 150 4.1.3.2. Substantiality of the Ego and the Mathematical ......... 155 4.1.3.3. Substantiality of the Ego and Representedness .......... 165 4.2. Temporality of Kant’s Transcendental Subject .............................. 175 4.2.1. Problem