Re: Kant and Heidegger

Laurence Paul Hemming wrote:
>
> Anyone who is going to try to read (and swallow) Strawson on Kant, and then tuck into Heidegger is going to have a horrid belly ache.

Good joke. At least we are getting some discussion going which does not
involve Heidegger's nazism.

There is no need to swallow Strawson's Kant, but there is need to read
it. I personally like the taste of it, and if my stomach aches, I just
give up on Heidegger. But it doesn't, so I don't. Nevertheless, I agree
that it is a bit tough to expect a first year to read Strawson on Kant
critically, so I apologise.

It is clear to me that the root to the (di-)solution of the problems of
traditional metaphysics can also be found in Strawson's reading of Kant,
and, even more, in McDowell's discussion of Kant, which is highly
influenced by Strawson. Some Heideggerians don't like it, but they
should know better. if there is something usable in Heidegger's thought
(I don't mean as a source of inspiration, but actually usable) is the
idea of Dasein forcing itself on Reality (with capital R, like in
Strawson's Kant; not in phenomenal reality, like in Kant).

Manuel.


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Replies
Kant and Heidegger, Laurence Paul Hemming
Partial thread listing: