Triin,
That's all interesting stuff, and I'd love to see a full discussion of
it get going. A good book that you might want to go into would be
Heidegger's 1925 lecture course, "The History of the Concept of Time."
Some call it the first rough draft of "Being and Time," but there are
some important differences as well. Also, I'd make sure to check out the
early works of Derrida (written ostensibly on Husserl, but on Heidegger
as well).
My biggest concern with going through Heidegger's writings on time has to
do with the very little attention given to our factual biological
situatedness. Aristotle certain had an inventive view of time, but he
completely missed the insight on memory that Augustine brought out so
simply and well. Now, Heidegger had his Ekstasis, and that's beautiful,
but it's difficult to see a direct route to our factical ways of being -
our animal side - in all this. [It strikes me that time cannot be dealt
with without taking into account our physical situation - otherwise we
end up with a one-sided Dasein which is Being-in-the-world, but which
takes the short-sighted view only through language and perception. The
question is: is there something which can be said from a "more naive"
physical understanding of our situation which is truly substantial? If you
ask me, yes, if for no other reason that there are _only_
preliminary descriptions available (our finitude and all that).]
Now, I know what you're thinking: Martin is bracketing our physical
description until the question of Being can be worked out (though we must
directly or indirectly use such a way of thinking as a first clue to the
thinking of Being, if only to say "not this or that"). Also, protention
and retention (to use Husserl-talk) can bring one to draw connections
with memory and anticipation which has physical limitations and
abilities. And, just to top things off, he catagorically denies our
existential connection with "mere animals," which I find to be the most
unfortunate part of his philosophizing. This is a conceptual break where
we need one the least. There is the initial thoughts about death, that
mention that "people die, but animals perish," which ultimately I find
quite wrong. Being fooled by our own language games about death, if you
ask me. Yes, there is a difference of effect for some group of animals,
but no, this is not a difference of kind.
OK, It's a beautiful day and I should really get outside. Besides, it's
my first iced-coffee of the spring, so I should really pay more attention
to it. :^)
-jeff
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
That's all interesting stuff, and I'd love to see a full discussion of
it get going. A good book that you might want to go into would be
Heidegger's 1925 lecture course, "The History of the Concept of Time."
Some call it the first rough draft of "Being and Time," but there are
some important differences as well. Also, I'd make sure to check out the
early works of Derrida (written ostensibly on Husserl, but on Heidegger
as well).
My biggest concern with going through Heidegger's writings on time has to
do with the very little attention given to our factual biological
situatedness. Aristotle certain had an inventive view of time, but he
completely missed the insight on memory that Augustine brought out so
simply and well. Now, Heidegger had his Ekstasis, and that's beautiful,
but it's difficult to see a direct route to our factical ways of being -
our animal side - in all this. [It strikes me that time cannot be dealt
with without taking into account our physical situation - otherwise we
end up with a one-sided Dasein which is Being-in-the-world, but which
takes the short-sighted view only through language and perception. The
question is: is there something which can be said from a "more naive"
physical understanding of our situation which is truly substantial? If you
ask me, yes, if for no other reason that there are _only_
preliminary descriptions available (our finitude and all that).]
Now, I know what you're thinking: Martin is bracketing our physical
description until the question of Being can be worked out (though we must
directly or indirectly use such a way of thinking as a first clue to the
thinking of Being, if only to say "not this or that"). Also, protention
and retention (to use Husserl-talk) can bring one to draw connections
with memory and anticipation which has physical limitations and
abilities. And, just to top things off, he catagorically denies our
existential connection with "mere animals," which I find to be the most
unfortunate part of his philosophizing. This is a conceptual break where
we need one the least. There is the initial thoughts about death, that
mention that "people die, but animals perish," which ultimately I find
quite wrong. Being fooled by our own language games about death, if you
ask me. Yes, there is a difference of effect for some group of animals,
but no, this is not a difference of kind.
OK, It's a beautiful day and I should really get outside. Besides, it's
my first iced-coffee of the spring, so I should really pay more attention
to it. :^)
-jeff
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---