"... elegant and provocative... Exhibit[s] a subtle mastery of Heidegger's works." —Review of Metaphysics "... splendidly precise study of Heidegger... to be recommended not only to Heidegger scholars but also to those interested in the question of what philosophical thinking has as its task in the modern technological world." —Religious Studies Review "... indispensable to understanding the later Heidegger." —Choice.
On Heidegger's Being and Time is an outstanding exploration of Heidegger's most important work by two major philosophers. Simon Critchley argues that we must see Being and Time as a radicalization of Husserl's phenomenology, particularly his theories of intentionality, categorial intuition, and the phenomenological concept of the a priori. This leads to a reappraisal and defense of Heidegger's conception of phenomenology. In contrast, Reiner Schürmann urges us to read Heidegger 'backward', arguing that his later work is the key to unravelling (...) Being and Time . Through a close reading of Being and Time Schürmann demonstrates that this work is ultimately aporetic because the notion of Being elaborated in his later work is already at play within it. This is the first time that Schürmann's renowned lectures on Heidegger have been published. The book concludes with Critchley's reinterpretation of the importance of authenticity in Being and Time . Arguing for what he calls an 'originary inauthenticity', Critchley proposes a relational understanding of the key concepts of the second part of Being and Time : death, conscience and temporality. (shrink)
In one of the Four Seminars that have now become accessible in Japanese, Heidegger makes a brief remark which, if correctly understood, tells one how his entire work should be read. In order to avoid misapprehensions about his very starting point, he writes, “after Being and Time thinking replaced the expression ‘meaning of being’ with ‘truth of being’. And so as to avoid any misapprehension about truth, so as to exclude its being understood as conformity, ‘truth of being’ has been (...) elucidated as ‘locality of being’—truth as the locus-character of being. That presupposes, however, an understanding of what a locus is. Hence the expression topology of being.”. (shrink)
The issue of intersubjectivity has taken on some urgency in the recent Hegel literature: M. Theunissen views inter subjectivity as the unifying factor of the system whereas J. Habermas declares it altogether absent from Hegel, tracing its origins rather to American pragmatism. Hösle's study, a bird's-eye view of the entire system with admirable scholarly and argumentative sharpness, seems at first to fall squarely within the position taken by Critical Theory.
The text presented here is an edited transcription of a thirteen-page unpublished typescript titled “Heidegger and the Mystical Tradition” by Reiner Schürmann. It dates back to the time following the completion of Schürmann’s book on Meister Eckhart and exhibits the preliminary conception of the former’s famous ‘practical a priori.’ Focusing on the relation between Heidegger’s meditative thinking and a mystical tradition inaugurated by Meister Eckhart, the text retrieves the steps of the latter’s path to Releasement as a practical transformation of (...) existence. In so doing, it provides a detailed account of Releasement as the condition for a peculiar experience of thinking “in which one fundamental attitude manifests itself throughout an itinerary of human existence and which tends to make this itinerary the very condition for the understanding of truth.” By hinging on Heidegger’s different acceptations of ‘letting-be’—as well as on his verbal understanding of Being as Anwesen and Ereignis —the text indicates Releasement as the coincidence of Being’s and man’s ways to be and shows how it is in the very “urgency of a new existence and thought” that the proximity between Heidegger and Meister Eckahrt’s mystical tradition comes to the fore. (shrink)
In a prior article, “Symbolic Difference,” I followed the indications provided by certain data in order to focus on the ontological locus of the symbol. A difference then appeared in the origin, which revealed itself through gesture, sign, use, and trace. The symbol, distended by definition between man and his origin, is the privileged region of language where this difference is thematized for itself. The search for the concealment-manifestation at work in the symbol led to the difficult problems surrounding its (...) interpretation, and it culminated with a summons or provocation towards existence. I mentioned some historical examples in which the symbol’s efficacy with regard to a life was blatant: the symbol opens up a path whose course makes one experience the origin. The condition of this experience is to “live without why,” to let that which is, be. (shrink)
This is not a work of mine. For some reason, I am unable to remove it from my page. It is a list of Dr. Reiner Schürmann's lecture notes for courses that he taught at the New School for Social Research (aka The New School).
On January 16, 1966, Reiner Schürmann wrote a letter to Martin Heidegger in which he submitted two questions for the philosopher’s consideration, and requested a conversation with him. Schürmann was a twenty-four year old friar at the Dominican Faculties of Philosophy and Theology of the Saulchoir, at Essonnes in France, where he had begun his studies in 1962. At the time, he was on a stay of study with Professor Bernhard Welte at the University of Freiburg. Heidegger responded on February (...) 4, inviting the young man to his home in Freiburg. On March 11, the very day of the visit, Schürmann related the content of his discussion with the philosopher to an anonymous correspondent. The three pieces of correspondence were found tucked away in one of the numerous Heidegger volumes of Schürmann’s library. The two letters are naturally written in German, whereas the report is in French. We here publish a translation of these documents. (shrink)
Page generated Sat Jul 31 09:33:30 2021 on philpapers-web-65948fd446-qrpbq
cache stats: hit=12939, miss=11040, save= autohandler : 1595 ms called component : 1573 ms search.pl : 1417 ms render loop : 1405 ms next : 798 ms addfields : 544 ms publicCats : 463 ms save cache object : 112 ms menu : 104 ms quotes : 65 ms retrieve cache object : 40 ms autosense : 32 ms prepCit : 29 ms search_quotes : 27 ms match_cats : 26 ms applytpl : 8 ms initIterator : 8 ms match_authors : 3 ms match_other : 2 ms intermediate : 2 ms init renderer : 1 ms setup : 0 ms auth : 0 ms writelog : 0 ms