European Journal of Philosophy 16 (3):432-458 (2008)

Denis McManus
University of Southampton
The work of Hubert Dreyfus interweaves productively ideas from, among others, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. A central element in Dreyfus' hugely influential interpretation of the former is the proposal that, if we are to—in some sense—'make sense' of intentionality, then we must recognize what Dreyfus calls the 'background'. Though Dreyfus has, over the years, put the notion of the 'background' to a variety of philosophical uses,1 considerations familiar from the literature inspired by Wittgenstein's reflections on rule-following have played an important role in motivating the case for believing that we need to recognize the 'background' and thus also in identifying precisely what it is about the intentional that supposedly needs to be 'made sense of'. Dreyfus argues that what he calls 'representationalism' will land us with an unstoppable 'regress of rules'. In this paper, I first argue that there are actually two different arguments that Dreyfus invokes; I then go on to evaluate quite how, in the light of the problems that those arguments reveal, our position might be thought to be improved by our recognizing the 'background'. Given that various philosophical positions designed to deal with these problems have emerged within the Wittgensteinian literature, an obvious question to ask is whether the position that Dreyfus would have us adopt is essentially one of those positions. If it isn't, then how does it differ? There is surely a variety of ways in which such a comparison might be carried out and what I offer is only one. I argue that if, through a recognition of the 'background', we are thought to have acquired solutions to those problems, then it's not at all clear that the supposed solutions that emerge work. So I explore instead the possibility that that recognition forms part of an attempt to 'dissolve' those problems. In order to bring some clarity to that possibility I consider a number of different ways in which Dreyfus' proposals might be interpreted by drawing on ideas set out by John McDowell (and I suggest that his view of one of the 'regress' arguments is anticipated by Heidegger himself). I then identify and assess some of the consequences of adopting such McDowellian readings. My sense is that Dreyfus is on the side of the angels, so to speak. But if what is right in his proposals is to become clear, and if he is to be spared some obvious objections that those proposals may elicit, we need to be clear about just what kind of contribution those proposals are meant to make. In pursuing that clarity, I am attempting to follow through on the comparison of Wittgensteinian and Heideggerian ideas that Dreyfus and his supporters have initiated: what has yet to be clarified is how and why recognizing the 'background' will allow us to 'cope better' with the puzzles in the rule-following literature that they have cited in making a case for the need to recognize the 'background'. Ultimately, I will argue that assessing this matter may require a yet broader comparison of Wittgensteinian and Heideggerian themes, one which raises questions about what we take 'doing ontology' and 'doing phenomenology' to be
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/ejop.2008.16.issue-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,156
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mind and World.John McDowell - 1994 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Philosophical investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein & G. E. M. Anscombe - 1953 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 161:124-124.
Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.

View all 36 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Heidegger and the Supposition of a Single, Objective World.Denis McManus - 2015 - European Journal of Philosophy 23 (2):195-220.
The Phenomenology of Everyday Expertise and the Emancipatory Interest.Brian O’Connor - 2013 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (9):0191453713498388.
The Habitus, Coping Practices, and the Search for the Ground of Action.Kevin M. Cahill - 2016 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 46 (5):498-524.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

McDowell and Dreyfus on Unreflective Action.Erik Rietveld - 2010 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 53 (2):183-207.
Self, Action and Passivity.Tony Cheng - 2015 - Philosophical Writings 44 (1):01-19.
Unreflective Action and the Argument From Speed.Gabriel Gottlieb - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):338-362.
Getting Heidegger Off the West Coast.Carleton B. Christensen - 1998 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):65 – 87.
Heidegger's Theory of Space: A Critique of Dreyfus.Yoko Arisaka - 1995 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):455 – 467.
Sharing the Background.Titus Stahl - 2013 - In Michael Schmitz, Beatrice Kobow & Hans Bernhard Schmid (eds.), The Background of Social Reality. Springer. pp. 127--146.
Geist, Körper Und Welt: Todes Und McDowell Über Körper Und Sprache.Joseph Rouse - 2013 - Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 61 (5-6):787-809.


Added to PP index

Total views
328 ( #24,055 of 2,411,744 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #188,340 of 2,411,744 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes