_A comprehensive anthology of Heidegger's early essays._.

A reconstruction and critical interpretation of Heidegger's remarkable relationship with to the poet Georg Trakl.

“Thing” and “nothing” are metaphysical themes of thinking for major philosophers both in the West and in East Asia, such as Heidegger, Kant, and Laozi 老子. In light of a discussion of Heidegger’s understanding of thing-ing and no-thing and of his critical interpretation of Kant on the same issue, I shall in this essay reconstruct a Laozian theory of thing and nothing. My conclusion is that thing and nothing are not two “things,” as often assumed by an epistemological approach, but (...) ontologically one thing cut by an absolute limit set up by human rationality which is contained either in our consciousness or in our languages. (shrink)

Seubold presenta el contenido de unas notas fragmentarias, no fechadas por Heidegger, sobre Paul Klee, pero que según él, pueden inscribirse hacia 1956, por lo cual sugiere que deben ser leídas a la luz de su filosofía tardía. En este ensayo, Seubold presenta algunos textos de Paul Klee citados por Heidegger, también se refiere a las obras del pintor suizo que más causaron impresión en el filósofo, y además, ofrece algunas interpretaciones del mismo Heidegger sobre el carácter metafísico del arte (...) occidental, exponiendo la necesidad de experimentar un cambio del arte. Heidegger se pregunta si las obras del arte moderno todavía pueden ser denominadas “obras”, o si éstas son más bien productos de la planificación técnico-científica. Con todo, a la concepción tradicional del arte como “imagen”, propone asumirla a partir de la relación mirada atenta y acaecimiento-apropiador (Ereignis), haciendo referencia a la obra de Cézanne, de Paul Klee y al arte asiático oriental donde, en su concepto, tiene lugar una transformación de la esencia del arte. (shrink)

El presente ensayo pretende analizar críticamente la interpretación que M. Heidegger hace de la obra de Hölderlin al establecer diversos paralelismos entre el ser y lo divino. El autor sostiene dos tesis: en primer lugar, que —en favor de Heidegger— se puede establecer una analogía entre la diferencia óntico-ontológica y el carácter diferencial de lo divino; en segundo lugar, que los elementos “excéntrico” y trágico de este último hacen implosionar —contra Heidegger— la intimidad “céntrica” del ser.

Despite the declarations about the possibility of rationalities that are alternative to Western European, despite the reasoning about philosophical multipolarity, the multiplicity of ways of thinking, etc., nowadays, the Western European paradigm of rationality (and concepts that corresponds to it), which is derived from Hellenic thought, continues to claim the status of ideological neutrality and transcend any intercivilizational differences. The Western European rationality in all its diversity is now acting as rationality as such. The indispensability of the reference to the (...) Greek conceptual apparatus in contemporary philosophizing manifests itself most openly in the form of comparativism. Thus, there is the focus on carrying out explicit parallels between, on the one hand, the studied non-European intellectual phenomena and, on the other hand, their supposed European counterparts. An example of the cross-cultural and methodologically sound research of the problems of rationality is an analysis of the Dao through the prism of the Logos. The statement of the uniqueness of the Greek Logos does not imply the prohibition of the existence of its original counterparts in the so-called “non-Western” civilizations with an ancient and distinctive culture. The assumption of the existence of their own analogues of the Logos and rationality in various non-European civilizations presumes the most interesting question about the pluralism of rationalities – the question about the existence of rationalities in the past that could be considered as an alternative to the now prevailing Western European standard of rationality. (shrink)

The “destructive” appropriation of the Aristotelian concepts of δύναµις and ἐνέργεια played a central role in Martin Heidegger’s own reflection on the meaning of being. While this has been generally known for some time, it is only now that we can understand the full scope, complexity and evolving character of this appropriation. One reason is the fairly recent publication of notes and protocols for seminars Heidegger led on Aristotle as late as the 1940s and 1950s. Another is the existence of (...) student transcripts in the Special Collections Department of Stanford University for a number of unpublished seminars on Aristotle that Heidegger led during the 1920s. Considering all of this material enables us to see both the significance of Heidegger’s interpretation of the δύναµις/ἐνέργιεα pair as well as how this interpretation evolved along with his own “Kehre”: from a “pandynamic” conception of being to being as “Ereignis.”. (shrink)