An attempt to clarify Heidegger's philosophy
A friend has said that Heidegger's philosophy, being anti-logical, is instinctive. At the time I agreed with her, but was very disturbed by it - why in the world would Heidegger spend his entirely life devoting himself to a philosophy of instinct? Therefore something is very wrong about this "instinctive" interpretation of Heidegger's philosophy. In this entry I attempt to clarify Heidegger's philosophy.
Heidegger's philosophy centers around the notion of Being, not in the sense of a being or an object, but Being in the sense of be-ing (paralleled to work-ing or walk-ing), meaning "emerging" or "presence". "Truth" is the way we experience Being of the world, and the articulation of "Truth" is done through "logos" or language, for language at its inception gathers Truth into spoken words so that it can be communicated or re-experienced. As time progresses in the intellectual/spiritual history of the West, this view of Being-Truth-logos is misunderstood and misinterpreted, forming the scientific systems and logic we now have. Base on this misunderstanding, Heidegger downplays logic, calling it a "mere correctness" towards reality.
The concern here is this: if Logic, which is our way of thinking in the modern West, is a misunderstanding, then is the correct understanding of Being anti-thinking, anti-logic? Do we instinctively understand Being and lost that ability through systematic, scientific education? If we are a child again, would we have understood Being as Heidegger would like us to? Afterall, the poet William Wordsworth expressed something similar:
There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light...(Ode: Intimation to Immortality, 1-4)
I now think to use the word "instinct" to describe Heidegger's philosophy is very wrong. Instincts are innate; animals have instinct. To pull away from fire is instinct; to understanding, however, is not. Heidegger's philosophy attempts to make us be aware of our own frame of reference towards reality, that things can be otherwise. The scientific way of thinking is not the way of thinking; it is just one way. Whatever that is anti-logic does not necessary mean that it is instinctive. If to understand and communicate Being requires language, then it can never be instinctive - language is something that is natural, yes, but also entirely man-made. With different language reality will be different. The use of language is a far more intimate way of thinking than the calculating logic. The western way of thinking in a logical and systematic fashion has convinced a lot of people that this is the only way of thinking. (My former summer school professor is one; he thinks Heidegger's philosophy is trash.) But I'm convinced that that is definitely not the case; how we relate to reality is a much more complicated issue than the stupid epistemology of the Anglo-American school.
Heidegger's philosophy centers around the notion of Being, not in the sense of a being or an object, but Being in the sense of be-ing (paralleled to work-ing or walk-ing), meaning "emerging" or "presence". "Truth" is the way we experience Being of the world, and the articulation of "Truth" is done through "logos" or language, for language at its inception gathers Truth into spoken words so that it can be communicated or re-experienced. As time progresses in the intellectual/spiritual history of the West, this view of Being-Truth-logos is misunderstood and misinterpreted, forming the scientific systems and logic we now have. Base on this misunderstanding, Heidegger downplays logic, calling it a "mere correctness" towards reality.
The concern here is this: if Logic, which is our way of thinking in the modern West, is a misunderstanding, then is the correct understanding of Being anti-thinking, anti-logic? Do we instinctively understand Being and lost that ability through systematic, scientific education? If we are a child again, would we have understood Being as Heidegger would like us to? Afterall, the poet William Wordsworth expressed something similar:
There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light...(Ode: Intimation to Immortality, 1-4)
I now think to use the word "instinct" to describe Heidegger's philosophy is very wrong. Instincts are innate; animals have instinct. To pull away from fire is instinct; to understanding, however, is not. Heidegger's philosophy attempts to make us be aware of our own frame of reference towards reality, that things can be otherwise. The scientific way of thinking is not the way of thinking; it is just one way. Whatever that is anti-logic does not necessary mean that it is instinctive. If to understand and communicate Being requires language, then it can never be instinctive - language is something that is natural, yes, but also entirely man-made. With different language reality will be different. The use of language is a far more intimate way of thinking than the calculating logic. The western way of thinking in a logical and systematic fashion has convinced a lot of people that this is the only way of thinking. (My former summer school professor is one; he thinks Heidegger's philosophy is trash.) But I'm convinced that that is definitely not the case; how we relate to reality is a much more complicated issue than the stupid epistemology of the Anglo-American school.
posted by Tristan at 10:10 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home