|
Here is something more recent from the Guardian website. An 8 part study of the philosophy of Heidegger. The final part was released on 27/07/09. While some of my friends have recommended his works I have to admit that I haven't read Heidegger's Being and Time, it is on my to do list. From having a quick glance at it in the bookshop recently it looks intimidating and will require a lot of time to digest properly. I'm not one to read through such books quickly and miss the meaning only to say that I've read it. People that speed read and miss out on content annoy me, anyway I digress.
Part I Heidegger sought to deconstruct philosophy and then rebuild it. He rejects previous terminology so must define his own terms. I've found that the source of most debate comes from a disagreement in definitions, often debate can be avoided by realizing that most people hold different definitions of the same word. The main thrust of this part is that humans are not distinct from the rest of reality but are instead part of it, that is to say that humans and the universe make up a whole (Dasein --- being-there. Humans exist for a finite amount of time, the notion of a temporary life lead Heidegger to suggest that humans are defined by their finite existence: being IS time. Hence, we need to "confront death" in order to understand what life really mean (id est: why are we here?). One concept that I've yet to understand fully is Heidegger's comment about the existence of God having no philosophical relevance. Clearly I need to read more about this idea in order to understand it; however, it relates well to my dislike of the current rash of supposed logical thoughts on the existence of God (see article: The Atheist Delusion). Part II One of the most important points to be gained from reading Heidegger seems to be the following: Do we have an answer to the question of the meaning of being? His response: no. Despite not having an answer did not prevent him from trying to formulate an answer and most certainly did not prevent him from debating the idea. What pleases most about reading these articles so far is that his philosophical ideas overlap with my own, admittedly many of the ideas still require more thought on my part. One part that I still need to contemplate more is the notion that being is time; I can't say that I agree or disagree with yet. What I see as of utmost importance in society is the need to be more critical of things that we like. We need to take things that we hold dear and deconstruct them critically to see where the flaws lie and not just to blindly accept something as absolute or true. Heidegger seems to agree: Do we experience perplexity about the question of being? No. In general, in science and politics especially, there is a need to recover perplexity for questions. From the article: "A table or chair cannot recite Hamlet's soliloquy or undergo the experience of self-questioning and self-doubt that such words express. But we can." Could it be that our concepts in science and politics are wrong (at worst) or slightly misguided (at best) ? I think so, we must take our best ideas and hammer them with questions. Analyzing our worst ideas with impeccable scrutiny is a task for kids, something that is easy. A harder job is pick holes in a logical and well established theory, especially if one hopes to win public backing from the resultant criticism (unfortunately, rocking the boat rarely pleases people). Part III
Heidegger objects to Descarte's division of "things" into thinking things (eg people) and extended things (eg tables, chairs): basis of subject versus object. Heidegger's holistic point of view breaks down this dualism by saying that humans are part of the world and not separate. This also relates to the debate of "what is natural?" (ie part of nature) Something that is man-made is considered as separate from nature. Particularly so when discussing Green issues such as pollution. Contention arises when we consider the following: humans can conceivably create something that won't occur (evolve) in nature. That is to say, while man-made pollution is a part of a holistic universe (part of nature) it seems impossible that it could have evolved without the existence of thinking beings. However, Heidegger says that this dichotomy we create is false. It matters not whether pollution is natural or not but rather how does it affect our (people's) experience with nature? It seems that Heidegger suggests that the universe should not be as distinct objects that interact but rather as something whole and complete. The concept of an interaction within the whole becomes more abstruse if we do not permit ourselves to consider the universe as separate and distinct objects. Part IV This part was the hardest part for me to understand. It discusses three concepts: state of mind, mood and thrownness. The summation of this part could be stated as: I'm always found somewhere and in some mood but the awareness of being found is thrownness. State of mind is a rough translation that seems to say: a human is always found somewhere, ie a location. Presumably this is not a point of making us distinct from the universe. Furthermore, humans are always found in a mood. The word mood is used to denote how we are in tune with the world around us. So our relationship to the world is how we are tuned into it, this describes our mood. It is not supposed to be rational contemplation but rather our feeling/instinct (?) towards our surroundings. If we are aware of our surroundings and hence relationship to the surroundings then we are thrown into the world. If we can throw off our thrown projection, so if we can change our awareness of our surroundings then we can experience what Heidegger calls freedom. So perplexity allows freedom. This is one of the harder parts to get my head around. Freedom is the experience of the human demonstrating its potential through acting in the world. Then he concludes that an authentic human is free and is characterised by the ability to 'be'. My understanding of this is that only once we can be aware of our surroundings and realise that we are 'somewhere' (a distinct location) and to admit perplexity in our thoughts about existence and being can we be free. Part V
The claim here is that Angst (anxiety) shows to us what we really are, it breaks us from the immersion of everyday life. Much in a way that in everday life we do not need to contemplate our own existence or the existence of God. Only mundane and trivial activities or thoughts bother us while immersed in everyday life. Hence, we are normally oblivious to nothingness. As always, Heidegger uses a word that in a different context than most people do. He claims that it is not about being afraid but rather the feeling of being free: nothing to tie us down or hold our thoughts back. While fear is of something in particular, anxiety is the experience of nothing in particular -- that which is indefinite. Hence we can see that it relates to becoming self-aware and holding perplexity of our own existence. It draws many parallels to nihilism, Heidegger states that anxiety is a viewpoint where life and the world is meaningless yet this admits us an experience of freedom. I think the main point is that anxiety breaks immersion of our banal everyday life. Part VI
This part analyses Heidegger's view of Death: accept mortality, affirm life, lose immersion and become aware of freedom. Only by confronting our finitude, accept that our lives come to an end in finite time, can we understand what it is to be. Hence, become an authentic human. He seems to suggest, like many others do, that death is absolute (perhaps the only absolute?). The end of this section discusses a point about higher mammals having an experience of morality. I don't have enough knowledge in this area but it is hard to see that animals can contemplate finitude, instead they have a fear of dying when under threat. Such a reaction is part of evolutionary psychology of animals but I'd like to see the articles about animals being able to show what Heidegger calls anxiety. Part VII Like part IV this is perhaps the second part that I understand least. Conscience is the experience of being aware of mortality ? So it must be related to anxiety and is about breaking immersion. My take on this is that we become anxious after we receive the 'silent call' of conscience. The silent call is when all the voices and noise around us desists and we become self-aware. What I'm struggling to understand is how the ideas are linked: conscience -> guilt -> debt -> being. Currently the idea of guilt and debt coming the idea of simply being is non-sequitur for me. Having a conscience is to be (reminded of morality) but to be is to have guilt. To have guilt is to have a debt and having a debt is to be. A cyclic bunch of concepts that almost make sense. [The link from article 7 to article 8 is broken on the Guardian website - correct link is below] Part VIII The final part looks at the concept of temporality, which ties in with the ideas of finitude and hence being. Heidegger dislikes the notion of holding the present moment as the most important; that the present is not an infinitessimal instant of time. I can understand the dislike of time being a flow of infinitessimal 'now moments' but it is harder to think about time as anything else. Time takes on its current meaning from humans, by construction. Without us here to experience it then time would have no meaning and there would be, as Heidegger suggests, no distinction between time and eternity. The concepts of past, present and future would be irrelevant; they are relational ideas or different frames of observation. He suggests that the human is not confined to the present but can project towards the future. That suggests to me, that a human can think about the future and try to create his own path through time. The past events in our life got us to the now (for lack of a better word) and that our will can be used to shape the future. We look at the future and decide where we want to go (project towards the future?). What I *think* he is complaining about is that humans place too much emphasis on the present and that they don't consider how their actions will affect the future. In short: don't be short sided in your approach to life. Only by combining all three aspects of time (past, present and future) can we have a moment of vision. That is to that we do more than just experience time flowing by us or around us. It seems this is part of Heidegger's fundamental definition of what it is to be human: to shape our own destiny rather than to simply let it happen. Related reading : An interview with Graham Harman on Heidegger.
|
