Re: Heidegger ala Bourdieu

Chris Hargens rightly cautions me:
>
>I think we must be careful about how much Foucault we read into Bourdieu.
>
Absolutely, I never heard of Bourdieu but from this forum.

But here is a warning: evidently Bourdieu would like to explain not only
Heidegger but his philosophy from a sociological standpoint, ie. Heidegger's
philosophy is merely the outgrowth of the socio political forces that shaped
the man. The argument would run as follows: Heidegger was shaped into a
fascist by the cultural milleu in which he grew. His philosophy is merely
the expression of his political attitudes. Heidegger's philosophy is
therefore through and through fascist. In the process, Edmund Husserl's
pronouncement that philosophy is the "queen of sciences" gets debunked in
favor of a sociological interpretations. (Husserl, commonly regarded as the
father of phenomenology, is to whom Heidegger dedicated Being and Time.) But
how are sociological claims to knowledge established? The whole thrust of
phenomenology in its inception with Husserl is therefore called into
question by Bourdieu.

>But how can we be certain that Heidegger, in tracing out
>of the ontological difference, is not confusing the ontic with the
>ontological? And perhaps more to the point, how can we be certain that
>Heidegger's own, _interested_, discursive practice as a philosopher does
>not self-servingly affect his tracing out of this difference.

Well, Husserl ultimately rejected Being And Time as anthropological. It is
important to be reminded that the analysis begun in Being and Time was
entirely provisional. The work is incomplete and was never completed. The
work on fundamental ontology was to be repeated again at a higher level. As
Letter on Humanism distinctly shows Heidegger abandoned the project of Being
and Time because of its apparently insurmountable anthropological
perspective. And once the question of being ceases to be pursued from the
perspective of Dasein as a priveleged entity, the ontic/ontological
difference ceases to have relevance. Dasein's authenticity as anticipatory
resoluteness no longer serves as a trace that differentiates the ontological
from the ontic. The whole question of what were Heidegger's interest,
however, can be easily answered. His one interest as a philosopher was the
question of being. That is the rock on which all attempts to question his
thought must revolve.

> --- from list [email protected] ---
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Wendel [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------




--- from list [email protected] ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: