I'm not convinced by Heidegger's reasoning that in order to investigate the nature of being we must investigate the being for whom the issue of being is a question, namely the human being. It's not at all apparent that by investigating the existential constitution of a human being we can learn about being in the abstract. Furthermore, it would appear there are several category errors Heidegger is making by conflating the 'meaning' of being with an investigation into the nature of being. It's a conflation of semantics with ontology.
Obviously I'm not a mind-reader, but I can't help but assume that Heidegger and Heideggerians like to wallow in these various ambiguities and word slippages, because then to question Heidegger's assumptions is to show you're part of the problem. Can't you see that Heidegger is out for a complete destruction of metaphysics? How can he destroy metaphysics if he has to to trade in familiar, 'theoretical' concepts. The critics are by default guilty of being slave to traditional metaphysics, which Heidegger, fortunately, is not.
Criticisms withstanding, I think Heidegger in Being and Time has created a brilliant framework of our everyday human existential phenomenology. That can be true and still has starting point can be trash, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment