Authors
William Blattner
Georgetown University
Abstract
I offer a revised interpretation of Heidegger's ontological idealism, his thesis that being, but not entities, depends on Dasein ? as well as its relationship to Kant's transcendental idealism. I build from my earlier efforts on this topic by modifying them and defending my basic line of interpretation against criticisms advanced by Cerbone, Philipse, and Carman. In essence, my reading of Heidegger goes like this: what it means to say that "being" depends on Dasein is that the criteria and standards that determine what it is to be, and hence whether an item (or anything at all) is, are conceptually interwoven with, and hence conceptually dependent upon, a structure that could not obtain without Dasein (namely, time). For this reason, to ask whether entities (e.g., nature) would exist, even if we (Dasein) did not, is either to ask an empirical question with an obvious negative answer (viz., According to our best current theories, does everything depend causally upon us?), or to ask a meaningless question with no answer (viz., If we suspend or discount the standards and criteria that determine whether anything is, does anything exist?). In short, Heidegger is an empirical realist, but neither a transcendental idealist nor realist.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00201740410004160
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Sein Und Zeit.Martin Heidegger (ed.) - 1927 - M. Niemeyer.
Critique of Pure Reason.Immanuel Kant - 1998 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Critique of Pure Reason.Immanuel Kant - 1781/1998 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell. pp. 449-451.
Critique of Pure Reason.Immanuel Kant - 1724 - Macmillan Company.
Sein und Zeit.Martin Heidegger - 1928 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 7:161-161.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Phenomenology, Idealism, and the Legacy of Kant.James Kinkaid - 2019 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (3):593-614.
Getting Real with Rouse and Heidegger.Jeff Kochan - 2011 - Perspectives on Science 19 (1):81-115.
Retrieving Heidegger's Temporal Realism.B. Scot Rousse - 2022 - European Journal of Philosophy 30 (1):205-226.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reply to Vallicella: Heidegger and Idealism.Quentin Smith - 1991 - International Philosophical Quarterly 31 (2):231-235.
Is Heidegger a Kantian Idealist?William D. Blattner - 1994 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):185 – 201.
Heidegger and the Problem of Idealism.Piotr Hoffman - 2000 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 43 (4):403 – 411.
World, World‐Entry, and Realism in Early Heidegger.David R. Cerbone - 1995 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):401 – 421.
Sociological Aspects of Heidegger'sbeing and Time.Stanley Paluch - 1963 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 6 (1-4):300-307.
Heidegger on Realism and Idealism.Mark Basil Tanzer - 1998 - Journal of Philosophical Research 23:95-111.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
149 ( #78,571 of 2,507,062 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,393 of 2,507,062 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes