Fuck if I know.
I’m going to have to disagree. Think of Frege, who was an outspoken anti-semite but seems immune to philosophical criticism for it because he worked in “logic”. How could someone so logical be so discriminatory? Heidegger’s philosophy is not immune to criticism. Even his most staunch defenders (and students) criticized his works and his affiliation with the Nazi party (see Arendt, Gadamer, Löwith, Derrida, etc.). The important task is to see what in his works is salvageable, if anything. Some of the most groundbreaking philosophers of the 20th century were Heideggerian (Derrida, Blanchot, Arendt, Levinas, even Foucault admitted his entire works stem in some way from his reading of Heidegger). One can be a reader of Heidegger and be against genocide, murder, and death. It is a disservice to the work to throw it out without even examining whether or not it is the text itself which is problematic, or if one can take what has been said by a problematic figure and transform it into something new, productive, beautiful.
though they did say I could be a discussant which I politely declined. The point being that when I went over the list I noticed a topic similar to mine. The paper was about Heidegger’s Being and Time and specifically the concept of “Being-a-Whole” which is actually a poor translation for “Being-towards-death” which was a key component of my own paper that I submitted. That is one thing but the abstract also shows the author had a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the “authentic” Being-towards-death and its relation to Dasein’s temporality and mode of “care”. This led the author to believe that there were certain paradoxes including the idea that there is an inability to actually or authentically understand our finitude.
I have to say I am disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity to present my paper or at least respond to that one. Oh well.
Nah, but seriously that would be weird. For many reasons.
In my class on Being and Time there came a moment when on temporality we determined that the world is the horizon upon which time is able to be experienced by Dasein who is thrown in to the world, and each “moment” or “event” that is experienced communally by multiple Dasein is still a unique experience interpreted differently (temporally) because of Dasein’s unique ekstatic temporality (arising from our ownmost existence and Being-toward-death) and thus while there is the possibility of interpreting the same event because of inhabiting the same horizon, it is impossible to say temporality is the same for each Dasein.
Crazy shit, am I right?
nothing seems to make sense anymore. at ALL.
and then went to a philosophy department dinner with mostly professors, grad students, and the lecturer. had a bunch of drinks, free food, and discussed everything from television shows to Heidegger, my professor’s work translating some later Heidegger texts all the way to politics. So, it was quite a good night.
seriously, if this shit doesn’t make you re-evaluate how you think about life and death… you are doing it wrong.
Martin Heidegger (via bardsandsages)
Martin Heidegger (via thechaosmachine)
Heidegger (via thefulcanelli-horizon)