Subject: Re: Being and Time-section one
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:56:16 +0000


Paul Murphy wrote:

>I thought that if he was rejecting the Enlightenment, that he would have to
>insist on something else, that which the Enlightenment is not, if one
>believes in dualities - logic/irrational, monarchy/democracy, order/chaos,
>aristocracy/equality.  I think sometimes that there can be a little chaos, 
>a
>little order, and much that is inbetween.  So, Heidegger is critiquing the
>Enlightenment.  What is the starting point of this critique?

Paul is asking exactly the right questions here. It is precisely the lack of 
asking Paul's question here that leads so many people to misinterpret 
Heidegger in two extreme ways: (1) either they say that there is no sense AT 
ALL in which Heideggerian phenomenology "disagrees with" or "critiques" any 
particular view, because it is meant to provide the ground for any "view" 
whatsoever, or (2) they go to the other extreme and misidentify Heideggerian 
phenomenology with some particular ontic "side," and then try to use it to 
justify some particular ontic side over another. Paul's question forces us 
to distinguish the precise sense in which these two are right, and the sense 
in which they are wrong.

Heidegger obviously criticizes some things. First and foremost, he 
criticizes the identification of Being with beings. Secondly (jumping ahead 
a bit), he criticizes the interpretation of Dasein as primarily an essence, 
instead of existence. Thirdly, he criticizes the interpretation of 
being-in-the-world as primarily being-inside. Fourthly, he criticizes the 
interpretation of being-with-others as posterior to the self or the "I". I 
could go on, but you get the point. So Heidegger is indeed criticizing the 
Enlightenment insofar as they identified Being with beings, or interpreted 
Dasein primarily as some essence, or being-in-the-world as primarily 
being-inside, or being-with-others as posterior to the "I," etc. To say that 
Heidegger does not "critique" is simply ridiculous on its face. I have been 
in so many Heidegger classes in which the professor immediately squashes any 
decent class discussion by declaring that Heidegger is not operating in such 
polemic modes. This is the number one reason that 99% of beginning students 
come out not knowing what the hell Heidegger is trying to say.

BUT, Heidegger does not then simply offer another ontic alternative. 
Instead, he offers an analytic which provides the ground of any possible 
ontic side whatsoever. What he rules out is not any particular ontic side, 
but the conflation of any such ontic side with the ontological ground. For 
example, Heideggerian phenomenology does not rule out ontic interpretations 
of Dasein as a soul, or matter, or an ego, etc. What it rules out is the 
interpretation of Dasein as FIRST AND FOREMOST (i.e., ontologically) a soul, 
or matter, or an ego, etc. For Heidegger, Dasein's "essence" is existence, 
not any particular existent or essence.

So yes Heidegger critiques or disagrees with the Enlightenment, but this 
does not reduce his phenomenology to an ontic side opposed to the 
Enlightenment side, because what he critiques are not ontic interpretations 
of Dasein, but the interpretations of Dasein FIRST AND FORMOST as ontic. The 
same goes for their interpretations of Being, being-in-the-world, 
being-with, etc.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---