Comments on: So Says Heidegger

By: Huan

Huan — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:48:04 +0000

Ah I was under the impression that Heidegger’s philosophy wasn’t humanist or moralist in any sense, that being in the world was simply a phenomenological look at the self. He also suggested something about the cultures that men are born into being something that holds them back in a sense from their authentic self. This certainly could prompt some type of contempt for the objects surrounding our activities couldn’t it? (As well as for our current state of being, being unable to live authentically, whatever that means. )

By: Dwight Furrow

Dwight Furrow — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:46:34 +0000

But Heidegger means “world” not “reality”. For Heidegger, to be in touch with reality is to be in the midst of a world of meaningful objects related to our activities. Subtracting the ethical implications would cancel the meaningfulness of that world. There is no awareness of reality independentlly of those meanings.

By: Huan

Huan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:57:43 +0000

Perhaps if we replace the word world with reality, Heidegger’s point would not change yet the apparent ethical implications would diminish. It seems that one can not and typically do not seek to destroy reality (imaginative fiction aside), for he seeks to alter it, akin to altering the self in the case of Heidegger I guess?