Defending Nietzsche from Heidegger's Nietzsche: an analysis and critique of Heidegger's understanding of Nietzsche's ontology and epistemology

Daniel Connell's thesis analysed Martin Heidegger's ontological and epistemological critique of Nietzsche in his later writings. It argued that Heidegger's understanding of Nietzsche is flawed, and presented an alternative account of Nietzsche's ontology and epistemology.

La ontología del amor en Pedro Laín y la idea de exterioridad

Este artículo reconstruye la teoría del amor de Pedro Laín Entralgo, en su doble referencia, a la ontología fenomenológica y a la metafísica de Zubiri. El amor representa para Laín el lugar en que se produce la posesión íntima de lo real y, al mismo tiempo, la incursión en el dinamismo y la apertura de la misma realidad. El repaso por las formas y grados que la teoría lainiana distingue en el amor lleva a encontrar en su forma máxima una apertura ontológica de carácter vertical hacia el fundamento metafísico. El artículo esboza finalmente la posibilidad de reinterpretar el amor como relación horizontal con una exterioridad de carácter inmanente.

From the "pólis" to the modern state: an approach to the problem of politics in Heidegger

This paper starts off asking whether a strictly political approach may be deduced based on Martin Heidegger’ ontological analyses of modernity. His interpretation of the Greek phenomenon of the polis is discussed along with the distinction established therein between this form of community and the modern state, founded according to Heidegger on the metaphysical essence of modernity. To clarify this question regard is had to the proclamation of values observed by Heidegger in the different forms of state organization arising in the age of technical consummation of metaphysics. In this connection, his vision of nihilism is studied and a hypothesis is finally offered as to the form of state that would be consistent with a renunciation of the values required, in his view, by the manifestation of the entity in modernity as a wholly producible object.

Dos décadas de una atormentada relación: Martin Heidegger y Edmund Husserl 1909-1929

La publicación reciente de documentos y la consulta directa en archivos posibilita un acercamiento renovado a la conflictiva relación entre Edmund Husserl y Martin Heidegger. El artículo lleva a cabo esto mediante una revisión del camino académico de Heidegger a la sombra de su protector Husserl. De ese modo se dejan ver las escisiones anímicas del joven Heidegger, su apropiación de la fenomenología husserliana y a la vez su distanciamiento del maestro. Con ello también se muestra que el rompimiento entre ambos pensadores no tiene su origen en los compromisos políticos de Heidegger en 1933, sino que era algo que latía desde el inicio de la relación.

An investigation of the nature and role of historicality in the thought of Dilthey and Heidegger

Introduction The question of the meaning, methods and philosophical manifestations of history is currently rife with contention. The problem that I will address in an exposition of the thought of Wilhelm Dilthey and Martin Heidegger, centers around the intersubjectivity of an historical world. Specifically, there are two interconnected issues. First, since all knowledge occurs to a person from within his or her historical age how can any person in any age make truth claims? In order to answer this concern we must understand the essence and role of history. Yet how can we come to an individual understanding ofwhat history is when the meanings that we use are themselves historically enveloped? But can we, we who are well aware of the knowledge that archaeology has dredged up from old texts or even from 'living' monuments of past ages, really neglect to notice these artifacts that exist within and enrich our world? Charges of wilful blindness would arise if any attempt were made to suggest that certain things of our world did not come down to us from the past. Thus it appears more important 2 to determine what this 'past' is and therefore how history operates than to simply derail the possibility for historical understanding. Wilhelm Dilthey, the great German historicist from the 19th century, did not question the existence of historical artifacts as from the past, but in treating knowledge as one such artifact placed the onus on knowledge to show itself as true, or meaningful, in light ofthe fact that other historical periods relied on different facts and generated different truths or meanings. The problem for him was not just determining what the role of history is, but moreover to discover how knowledge could make any claim as true knowledge. As he stated, there is a problem of "historical anarchy"!' Martin Heidegger picked up these two strands of Dilthey's thought and wanted to answer the problem of truth and meaning in order to solve the problem of historicism. This problem underscored, perhaps for the first time, that societal presuppositions about the past and present oftheir era are not immutable. Penetrating to the core of the raison d'etre of the age was an historical reflection about the past which was now conceived as separated both temporally and attitudinally from the present. But further than this, Heidegger's focus on asking the question of the meaning of Being meant that history must be ontologically explicated not merely ontically treated. Heidegger hopes to remove barriers to a genuine ontology by II 1 3 including history into an assessment ofprevious philosophical systems. He does this in order that the question of Being be more fully explicated, which necessarily for him includes the question of the Being of history. One approach to the question ofwhat history is, given the information that we get from historical knowledge, is whether such knowledge can be formalized into a science. Additionally, we can approach the question of what the essence and role of history is by revealing its underlying characteristics, that is, by focussing on historicality. Thus we will begin with an expository look at Dilthey's conception of history and historicality. We will then explore these issues first in Heidegger's Being and Time, then in the third chapter his middle and later works. Finally, we shall examine how Heidegger's conception may reflect a development in the conception of historicality over Dilthey's historicism, and what such a conception means for a contemporary historical understanding. The problem of existing in a common world which is perceived only individually has been philosophically addressed in many forms. Escaping a pure subjectivist interpretation of 'reality' has occupied Western thinkers not only in order to discover metaphysical truths, but also to provide a foundation for politics and ethics. Many thinkers accept a solipsistic view as inevitable and reject attempts at justifying truth in an intersubjective world. The problem ofhistoricality raises similar problems. We 4 -. - - - - exist in a common historical age, presumably, yet are only aware ofthe historicity of the age through our own individual thoughts. Thus the question arises, do we actually exist within a common history or do we merely individually interpret this as communal? What is the reality of history, individual or communal? Dilthey answers this question by asserting a 'reality' to the historical age thus overcoming solipsism by encasing individual human experience within the historical horizon of the age. This however does nothing to address the epistemological concern over the discoverablity of truth. Heidegger, on the other hand, rejects a metaphysical construel of history and seeks to ground history first within the ontology ofDasein, and second, within the so called "sending" of Being. Thus there can be no solipsism for Heidegger because Dasein's Being is necessarily "cohistorical", Being-with-Others, and furthermore, this historical-Being-in-the-worldwith- Others is the horizon of Being over which truth can appear. Heidegger's solution to the problem of solipsism appears to satisfy that the world is not just a subjective idealist creation and also that one need not appeal to any universal measures of truth or presumed eternal verities. Thus in elucidating Heidegger's notion of history I will also confront the issues ofDasein's Being-alongside-things as well as the Being of Dasein as Being-in-the-world so that Dasein's historicality is explicated vis-a-vis the "sending of Being" (die Schicken des S eins).

L'angoisse chez Søren Kierkegaard et chez Martin Heidegger

L’angoisse est un état qui se distingue des autres sentiments en ce qu’elle ne survient devant rien de précis, mais plutôt devant notre vie en général. Mais que signifie-t-elle? Pourquoi fait-elle jour? Le présent mémoire vise à mieux comprendre le phénomène de l’angoisse à travers les conceptions de deux philosophes s’y étant attardé de façon importante : Søren Kierkegaard et Martin Heidegger. Il cherche à cerner ce que ces deux conceptions, malgré des divergences importantes, peuvent amener comme éclairage philosophique à ce phénomène proprement humain. En fait, leurs conceptions philosophiques respectives de l’angoisse transforment – permettent un autre regard -, sur la question. Ils ne font pas vraiment état des effets psychologiques de l’angoisse, mais plutôt de ce que cette dernière peut permettre d’ouvrir comme perspective de saisie de l’être humain. Effectivement, l’angoisse, comme situation affective, permet d’atteindre l’être humain d’une façon plus profonde et plus originaire que ne le ferait n’importe quelle science. Elle permet de se positionner au cœur de ce qui constitue l’être humain, qui est une synthèse entre deux éléments contraires (l’âme et le corps, l’ontique et l’ontologique, etc.), dévoilant ainsi l’existence de l’être humain d’une manière toute particulière. De plus, l’angoisse assure aussi le lien entre le possible et le réel, mettant ainsi l’être humain devant un enjeu fondamental de sa condition, à savoir son possible, son destin.

Nietzsche et le tournant dans la pensée de Martin Heidegger : examen d'une thèse de Hannah Arendt

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Le problème de la fondation ontologique de la psychiatrie dans les Zollikoner Seminare de Martin Heidegger

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Sur l'interprétation Heideggérienne du chapitre "Du schématisme des concepts purs de l'entendement" de la critique de la raison pure de Kant

Cette analyse porte sur le schématisme des concepts purs de l’entendement, tel que présenté par Emmanuel Kant dans la Critique de la raison pure et interprété par Martin Heidegger. La lecture proposée par Heidegger est critiquée par un bon nombre de commentateurs dans la mesure où ils considèrent que son interprétation ne lui sert qu’à faire valoir ses propres théories philosophiques au sujet du Dasein et de l’ontologie fondamentale. Notre approche se distingue de la leur dans la mesure où nous tentons de comprendre les raisons qui ont poussé Heidegger à défendre l’interprétation du schématisme qui est la sienne. Notre étude s’attarde au texte de Kant de manière à en souligner les éléments qui ont permis à Heidegger d’établir sa lecture, telle qu’il la présente dans son ouvrage de 1929, ayant pour titre Kant et le problème de la métaphysique. La méthode utilisée est comparative, car notre but est de démontrer la valeur de l’interprétation heideggérienne contre celle des commentateurs qui le critiquent pour des raisons insuffisantes. Bref, le thème du schématisme kantien est analysé de long en large et la conclusion à laquelle nous parvenons est que Heidegger a permis des avancées philosophiques considérables par son herméneutique de la Critique et qu’il est nécessaire de leur accorder l’attention qui leur est due.

Martin Heidegger em va ferir

Resumen basado en el de la publicaci??n