Introduction to Phenomenological Research, volume 17 of Martin Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe, contains his first lectures given at Marburg in the winter semester of 1923–1924. In these lectures, Heidegger introduces the notion of phenomenology by tracing it back to Aristotle’s treatments of phainomenon and logos. This extensive commentary on Aristotle is an important addition to Heidegger’s ongoing interpretations which accompany his thinking during the period leading up to Being and Time. Additionally, these lectures develop critical differences between Heidegger’s phenomenology and that of (...) Descartes and Husserl and elaborate questions of facticity, everydayness, and flight from existence that are central in his later work. Here, Heidegger dismantles the history of ontology and charts a new course for phenomenology by defining and distinguishing his own methods. (shrink)

Der erste Teilband des umfangreichen Seminarbandes 84 der Gesamtausgabe gehort in den grossen Kontext von Martin Heideggers Auseinandersetzung mit Immanuel Kant und Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz ist fur Heidegger von herausragender Bedeutung fur die Geschichte der neuzeitlichen Metaphysik zwischen Descartes und Kant. Im Band 84.1 kommen drei Seminare zu Kant und ein Seminar zu Leibniz erstmals zur Veroffentlichung. Die drei Kant-Seminare befassen sich mit Kants Preisschrift uber die aFortschritte der Metaphysik (Sommer 1931), mit Kants aTranszendentaler Dialektik aus der Kritik der (...) reinen Vernunft im Hinblick und Vorgriff auf Kants praktische Philosophie (Winter 1931/32) und nochmals mit aHauptstucken aus der Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Sommer 1934). Das Leibniz-Seminar (Winter 1935/36) gibt erstmals eine grundlegende und wegweisende Gesamtinterpretation der aMonadologie. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to show the role and meaning of Descartes’s philosophy in the context of Heidegger’s way of philosophizing, focusing on his metaphysics of subjectivity. According to Heidegger the latter is marked by a transformation in understanding the being of existence. By this he meant the fact, that the in representation of being is determined by the subject. What really is and is valid as existing, is only the object in the re-presentation of the re-presenting person. (...) Heidegger argues that the modern history of being, from its understanding as re-presentation up to the will to power can be conceived as the history of metaphysics of subjectivity. For Heidegger Descartes’s metaphysics is an instantiation of thinking which is limited by the existence without recurring to the most fundamental aspect, namely its being. (shrink)

Descartes, one of the 17th century philosophers, likens philosophy to a tree in the context of the classification of sciences. According to him, philosophy is a tree: roots are metaphysics, body is physics and branches are medicine, mechanics and ethics. This classification is also called as the tree of philosophy and it symbolizes the scientific paradigm of the Cartesian tradition and therefore the modern philosophy in general. Descartes' famous tree was shaken with a heavy question asked three centuries later by (...) the German philosopher Heidegger. Heidegger asks the French philosopher: “What is the soil of the Philosophy tree?”. We want to go back in time before Descartes, keeping this challenging question of Heidegger and aiming to find the answer given by the famous Ottoman scholar Tashkubrizadah. In his three-volume work called as Miftâh al-Sa‘âdah, Tashkubrizadah sets out a very distinctive classification of ‘ulûm that have not seen before. What also attracts our attention here is that Tashkubrizadah also draws a tree symbol just like Descartes in his classification. We see this foundation in the section headings of his work. These headings also have a special importance in terms of showing the boundaries and depth of Ottoman ‘ilm tradition. (shrink)

Abstract: Heidegger's Sein und Zeit (SZ) is commonly viewed as one of the 20th century's great anti-Cartesian works, usually because of its attack on the epistemology-driven dualism and mentalism of modern philosophy of mind or its apparent effort to ‘de-center the subject’ in order to privilege being or sociality over the individual. Most who stress one or other of these anti-Cartesian aspects of SZ, however, pay little attention to Heidegger's own direct engagement with Descartes, apart from the compressed discussion in (...) SZ§§19–21. I here show through a careful reading of Heidegger's lectures on Descartes from the years immediately preceding SZ that, while he has sharp criticisms of Descartes and certain ‘Cartesian’ aspects of modern philosophy along the lines commonly recognized, he also aims to disclose what he calls the ‘positive possibilities’ in Descartes and the philosophy he inspired. I detail a number of these and then show that they force us to see Heidegger's own early project as largely unconcerned with dualism and mentalism per se, and much more with questions of the philosophical methodology that gives rise to them. Moreover, I show that a careful reading of Heidegger's treatment of the cogito makes clear that he is no serious way attempting to ‘de-center the subject’ and that the fundamental question of the ‘analytic of Dasein’ is one that takes Descartes as an immediate jumping off point: how can I articulate what I understand myself to be as the general kind of entity I am, and on what besides me does my being depend? (shrink)

Este artículo interpreta tres sueños decisivos que sacudieron a Descartes tomando como punto de partida lo que Heidegger denominó otro inicio de la filosofía en el espanto (das Erschrecken). Por un lado, se mostrará cómo las pesadillas que experimentó Descartes abrían la posibilidad de un pensar inicial. Por otro lado, se detallará cómo Descartes retrocede ante esa posibilidad. Vinculando la dimensión oculta del ser a lo demoniaco, Descartes buscó refugio en un pensamiento calculador fundamentado en un Dios veraz que garantiza (...) la disponibilidad del ser. El análisis de los sueños aquí propuesto busca llamar la atención sobre un trasfondo que ayude a comprender de qué busca refugio Descartes cuando construye el edificio de la ciencia y qué vías quedan abiertas en el subsuelo de su pensamiento. (shrink)

The article reconstructs the arguments of Heidegger's critique of classical metaphysics, in particular Cartesian metaphysics. Heidegger saw Cartesianism as a source of modern metaphysical foundations and related prejudices. The author comes to the conclusion that the main object of Heidegger's criticism is (1) misunderstanding of the ambiguity of Cartesian philosophical instruction; (2) the definition of a human being as cogito; (3) the concept of the world as nature.

Benjamin provides new and important readings of key canonical texts in the history of philosophy in his sustained philosophical reworking of ontology. Amongst texts included are Hegel's _Difference Essay_ and the _Shorter Logic_ and Heidegger's _Time and Being_ and _The Question of Being_. The effective presence of ontology, defined as `an original difference', will be familiar to readers of his earlier writings. This book represents his most thorough and original contribution to contemporary philosophy to date.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the main philosophical roots of Donna Haraway’s thinking, an issue she rarely discusses and which is frequently ignored in the literature, but which will allow us to not only better understand her thinking, but also locate it within the philosophical tradition. In particular, it suggests that Haraway’s thinking emanates from a Cartesian and Heideggerian heritage whereby it, implicitly, emanates from Heidegger’s destruction of metaphysical anthropocentrism to critique the divisions between human, (...) animal, and machine that Descartes insists upon in his Discourse on Method. While suggesting that Haraway is, implicitly, influenced by Heidegger’s critique of the binary logic constitutive of Descartes’ anthropocentrism, I first argue that her support for Jacques Derrida’s, Bruno Latour’s, and Giorgio Agamben’s critical readings of Heidegger lead her to jettison Heidegger’s suggestion that overcoming this logic requires a re-questioning of the meaning of being to, instead, develop an immersed, entwined ontology that aims to call into question the fundamental divisions underpinning Cartesian-inspired anthropocentrism, before, second, concluding by offering a Heideggerian critique of Haraway’s thinking. (shrink)

English summary: Heidegger allowed us to better hear metaphysics by passionately listening to it. In this volume we seek to better understand Heidegger by patiently listening to another metaphysician: Descartes. The meaning of Descartess thought in creating an onto-theology of the causa and cogitatio, also taken up in the work of Heidegger, faithfully reveals Heideggers directions. French description: En se mettant passionnement a son ecoute, Heidegger nous a permis d'entendre la metaphysique d'une maniere inouie. Par un juste retour des choses, (...) dans un geste inedit, il s'agira ici de mieux entendre Heidegger en se mettant patiemment a l'ecoute d'un metaphysicien precis: Descartes, ou plutot a l'ecoute de ce qu'il nous en dit. Car loin d'etre anecdotiques, les significations que la pensee de Descartes a - la premiere faisant d'elle une onto-theologie de la causa, la seconde une onto-theologie de la cogitatio - et prend dans l'oeuvre de Heidegger - la premiere etant de la provoquer, la deuxieme de l'aiguiller, la troisieme de l'instruire - revelent fidelement les orientations de celui-ci, en et hors metaphysique. Comme il sied en hermeneutique, il sera donc question de sens, celui que l'on prend n'etant pas moins indifferent a celui que l'on donne que celui que l'on donne n'est innocent de celui que l'on prend. (shrink)

Que la pensée cartésienne, plus que n’importe quelle autre, fonde une ère philosophique nouvelle est un point par tous accordé en histoire de la philosophie. Que la portée réelle de l’inauguration cartésienne n’apparaisse pleinement qu’avec Leibniz est en revanche un élément traditionnellement peu soupçonné. C’est pourtant ce que nous enseigne Heidegger, qui admet le premier le caractère décisif de la démarche cartésienne en tant qu’elle ouvre incontestablement les Temps modernes, mais n’en reconnaît pas moins une supériorité essentielle de la pensée (...) leibnizienne en tant qu’elle la poursuit, l’approfondit et l’accomplit. Aussi Leibniz constitue-t-il à ses yeux la vérité de Descartes. (shrink)

Este artigo pretende restituir a leitura que Heidegger e Sartre realizam da filosofia de Descartes, desvelando, a partir disso, as diferentes posições interpretativas que ambos os filósofos tomam em relação ao pensamento cartesiano. Observar-se-á que o tratamento dado por Heidegger à metafísica cartesiana explicita um anti-humanismo contrário ao humanismo sartreano. A partir dessa diferença, seremos capazes de assinalar um distanciamento teórico entre Heidegger e Sartre, distanciamento que poderá revelar, por conseguinte, a maneira peculiar pela qual Sartre opera com os conceitos (...) hedeggerianos em L’être et le néant. Palavras-chave: humanismo; anti-humanismo; fenomenologia; liberdade; metafísica.: This article aims to replace the Hedeigger’s and Sartre’s read from Descarte’s philosophy unveiling, from that, the different interpretive positions that both philosophers take in relation to the Cartesian thought. We will observe that the treatment given by Heidegger to the Cartesian metaphysics reveals an anti-humanism contrary from Sartre’s humanism. From this difference, we will be able to point out a theoretical detachment between Heidegger and Sartre, detachment that may reveal, meanwhile, the peculiar way by which Sartre deals with the Heidegger’s concepts in L’être et le néant. Keywords: humanism; anti-humanism; phenomenology; freedom; metaphysics. (shrink)

이 논문은 데카르트의 철학을 하이데거의 존재론의 관점에서 분석하고, 데카르트 철학이 은폐한 존재의 의미를 해명하는데 있다. 이런 하이데거의 존재의미에 대한 해명은 바로 인간 삶의 장을 회복하는 것을 보여줄 것이다. 하이데거는 전통철학을 존재망각의 역사로 규정한다. 존재망각은 지금까지 ‘존재’는 한 번도 말하지 않았다는 것이다. 하이데거는 이런 전통철학의 평가 속에서 데카르트 철학을 중요하게 분석한다. 하이데거에게 데카르트는 절대적인 인식의 토대를 마련했다는 철학사적 평가에도 불구하고 가장 극단적으로 존재를 은폐했기 때문이다. 즉 데카르트는 세계와 자아를 그 자체 분리된 존재, 즉 ‘세계 없는 자아’와 ‘자아 없는 세계’라는 두 실체로 (...) 파악했다. 그 결과 세계와 인간(현존재)의 공속적(통일적) 관계는 불가능하며, 존재 그 자체는 깊숙이 은폐되었다. 데카르트이후 니체를 포함한 근대철학 역시 세계와 인간의 분리를 극복하지 못하고, 나아가 데카르트가 은폐한 존재의 의미 또한 해명하지 못했다. 이것은 존재해명이 데카르트에서 한 걸음도 나아가지 못했다는 것을 의미한다. 하이데거는 데카르트에서 한 걸음도 나아가지 못한 망각된 존재를 밝히고자 한다. 하이데거에게 그 망각된 존재는 인간과 세계의 공속적(통일적) 관계 속에서 드러나며, 그 관계 속에서 구체적 경험으로 나타난다. 즉 하이데거의 존재는 현존재가 자신의 실존을 위해 세계와 공속적(통일적) 관계를 가질 때 체험되는 존재이다. 따라서 이런 존재 체험은 전통철학이 말하는 사유하는 존재일 수 없으며, 세계 또한 사유속의 관념세계일 수 없다. 사유하는 존재와 관념세계는 공속적(통일적) 관계가 아니라 ‘이원론’적 관계로 그런 관계 속에 존재는 추상적이고 이론적으로 나타날 뿐이다. 그러나 하이데거에게 존재는 인간과 세계의 이원론을 극복하고 인간(현존재)의 실존을 통한 세계와의 공속적(통일적) 관계 속에서 구체적으로 체험할 수 있다. (shrink)

La tesis principal sostiene que Descartes, mucho antes que Nietzsche, sentó las bases para la aserción de la fenomenalidad del mundo interno, el cual posee los atributos de certeza e indubitalidad de las que carecen los fenómenos externos de la percepción. Después de un primer analisis del alcance del cógito de las Meditaciones, de la crítica al mismo de Nietzsche y finalmente de la crítica de Heidegger a ambos, se analizan los problemas inherentes a sus respectivos planteos. Mientras que el (...) cógito de las Meditaciones sólo prueba la existencia del ser sustancial inmaterial, el Tratado de las pasiones y ciertas cartas de Descartes permiten la postulación de un �yo� sustrato del compuesto alma-cuerpo que no sólo es sede de las pasiones y acciones, sino que alberga emociones ciertas e indudables que permiten la constitutición de un sujeto de la experiencia afectiva. El análisis de la subjetividad en Nietzsche revelará que, aunque el sujeto es sólo una ficción útil, comparte ciertos rasgos con la subjetividad afectiva postulada: las emociones remiten al mundo exterior en cuanto éste es sentido y, en cuanto le advienen al alma y la afectan irremisiblemente, no pueden ser puestas en duda. (shrink)

Descartes ne joue pas, dans la pensée de Heidegger, un rôle limité à l'interprétation de l'histoire de la philosophie. Lorsque Sein und Zeit entreprend de déterminer le mode d'être propre et irréductible du Dasein, Heidegger doit entrer en confrontation avec certes Husserl, mais surtout, par-delà la « conscience » husserlienne, avec Descartes lui-même. Car l'ennemi mortel du Dasein, cest l'ego du cogito. Dans quelle mesure cette rivalité n'induit-elle pas aussi une similitude? Die Rolle, die Descartes in dem Denken von Heidegger (...) spielt, darf nicht in dem Feld seiner Deutung der Geschichte der Philosophie eng begrenztwerden. Denn, als Sein und Zeit eine Bestimmung der eigentümlicheigentlichen Seinsweise des Daseins hervorzubringen unternimmt, setzt die « Destruktion der Geschichte der Ontologie » eine Auseinanderstzung nicht nur mit Husserl, sondern auch, über Husserl hinaus, gerade mit Descartes vor. Der Todfeind des Daseins ist das ego, das aus dem cogito stammt. Inwiefern aber diese ständige Gegenüberstellung eine tiefe Nachahmung hinweise ? (shrink)

L’examen de certains manuscrits inédits du Fonds Foucault déposé par Daniel Defert à la BnF, en 2013, montre que le Descartes de Foucault est une variante simplifiée de celui de Heidegger. Foucault reprend en effet à la lecture heideggérienne de Descartes la liaison que le philosophe allemand met en place entre la mathesis universalis et le cogito, qui ne se trouve assurément pas chez Descartes. C’est de cette manière que ces deux auteurs critiquent ce qu’ils mettent eux-mêmes au jour chez (...) Descartes – le sujet de la certitude – et qu’ils font de l’inquiétude l’affect historique propre à la pensée. La présente étude reconstruit le lien entre la mathesis et le cogito et la critique de la vérité comme certitude, tel qu’il est élaboré dans les cours de Heidegger sur Descartes, Augustin et Aristote, au début des années 20. La manière dont Heidegger établit ce lien suit l’évolution de la pensée de Heidegger, mais nous prenons le parti de mettre l’accent sur le cours sur Descartes de 1922-1923 (Introduction à la recherche phénoménologique), car dans les années 20, Heidegger fait de l’inquiétude la figure de l’ipséité. Nous reconstruisons en parallèle la manière dont Foucault intègre la lecture heideggérienne de Descartes à la sienne et comment il en déplace la signification, en évoquant certains textes connus de l’Histoire de la folie, mais aussi en analysant des manuscrits inédits de Foucault. Car le rapprochement que nous proposons entre les deux auteurs, tout comme la mise en relief de ce qui les distingue, se fait à la faveur de l’occasion historique que constitue la mise à disposition de textes qui étaient auparavant inédits. Et, en effet, les cours de Heidegger que nous analysons ont été publiés dans la Gesamtausgabe après la mort de Foucault, et leur traduction en français est toute récente. En procédant ainsi, nous voulons montrer comment la redéfinition contemporaine de la subjectivité s’est élaborée, au XXe siècle, à partir de la notion d’inquiétude, et plus spécifiquement de l’inquiétude historique. (shrink)

Martin Heidegger is among the most important philosophers of the Twentieth Century. Within the continental tradition, almost every great figure has been deeply influenced by his work. For this reason, a full understanding of the course of modern philosophy is impossible without at least a basic grasp of Heidegger. Unfortunately, his work is notoriously difficult, both because of his innovative ideas and his difficult writing style. In this compelling book, Lee Braver cuts through the jargon to present Heidegger’s ideas in (...) clear English, using illuminating examples and explications of thorny passages. In so doing, he offers readers an accessible overview of Heidegger’s entire career. The first half of the book presents a guide through _Being and Time_, Heidegger’s early masterpiece, while the second half covers the key themes of his later writing, including technology, subjectivity, history, nihilism, agency, and the nature of thought itself. As Heidegger’s later work is deeply engaged with other philosophers, Braver explains the relevance of Plato, Descartes, Kant, and Nietzsche for Heidegger’s thought. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars trying to find their way through Heidegger’s difficult ideas. Anyone interested in Twentieth Century continental philosophy must come to terms with Heidegger, and this book is the ideal place to begin. (shrink)

La question que Martin Heidegger a posée à l'ensemble de la tradition occidentale est celle du sens de son concept fondamental, celui de l'être. En révélant que c'est à partir du temps que nous comprenons l'être, il a montré que la philosophie trouve son origine dans l'existence d'un être qui ne peut plus être compris, comme le veut la philosophie moderne depuis Descartes, comme un sujet centré sur lui-même. La question du temps n'est donc pas pour lui une question philosophique (...) parmi d'autres, mais celle qui seule peut donner accès à ce qui constitue l'humanité comme telle. Ce que Martin Heidegger accomplit en posant la question du rapport de l'être et du temps, c'est cette " révolution du mode de penser " que requiert la prise en vue de l'essentielle finitude de l'homme et de l'être. La mise en évidence de l'historialité foncière de la pensée philosophique implique que celle-ci ne puisse plus se définir comme une pure théorie et qu'elle exige un engagement existentiel qui ne la met pas à l'abri de l'erreur. C'est uniquement à partir d'une telle conception de la pensée que l'on peut comprendre l'engagement politique de Martin Heidegger, ce qui ne signifie nullement l'excuser. SOMMAIRE : - PRESENTATION- LA TEMPORALITE DE L'ETRE EN TANT QUE QUESTION FONDAMENTALE- LA TEMPORALITE DU "DASEIN" ET LA FINITIUDE DU TEMPS- L'INACHEVEMENT DE "ETRE ET TEMPS" ET LA PENSEE DE L'"EREIGNIS"- REMARQUES SUR LA TRADUCTIONS DE CERTAINS TERMES. (shrink)

Concerning Descartes and Kant, Michel Fichant and Jean Luc Marion claim that “when Kant thinks, Descartes still implicitly advances”. Yet, is a convergence among ontological theses (Heidegger) sufficient to nullify divergences among methodological grounds? To refuse the relationship of inherency "Descartes in Kant”, it is necessary to move from the standpoint of being to that of thinking, and observe in what sense words like “evidence” and “certainty”, once redefined by Kant, clarify the originality of the methodological problem of the Critique (...) of Pure Reason. (shrink)

Does Descartes belong to metaphysics? What do we mean when we say "metaphysics"? These questions form the point of departure for Jean-Luc Marion's groundbreaking study of Cartesian thought. Analyses of Descartes' notion of the ego and his idea of God show that if Descartes represents the fullest example of metaphysics, he no less transgresses its limits. Writing as philosopher and historian of philosophy, Marion uses Heidegger's concept of metaphysics to interpret the Cartesian corpus--an interpretation strangely omitted from Heidegger's own history (...) of philosophy. This interpretation complicates and deepens the Heideggerian concept of metaphysics, a concept that has dominated twentieth-century philosophy. Examinations of Descartes' predecessors (Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Suarez) and his successors (Leibniz, Spinoza, and Hegel) clarify the meaning of the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. Expertly translated by Jeffrey Kosky, this work will appeal to historians of philosophy, students of religion, and anyone interested in the genealogy of contemporary thought and its contradictions. (shrink)

Methodologically rigorous description, analysis, and critique of postmodern phenomena presuppose a rigorous theory of postmodernity, for which the philosophy of Martin Heidegger holds great untapped promise. This essay explicates the basic content of Heidegger’s “metametaphysics,” since for Heidegger a “metaphysics” is the epochally prevailing projection of the meaning of being in general, and he offers a theory of Western metaphysics. I begin with Heidegger’s analysis of the “regional ontologies” of the sciences in his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time, since (...) the metametaphysical works of the “late middle” Heidegger in the 1930s–1940s extend this analytical framework to metaphysics as global ontology. I then explicate Heidegger’s views on modern metaphysics, focusing on his analyses of modern science and the philosophy of Descartes, before turning to his theory of postmodernity, which I extract from his analyses of modern technology and the philosophy of Nietzsche. (shrink)

Most students of philosophy, at one time or another, have worked through Descartes' Meditations and witnessed this reduction of the world to the res cogitans and consequent attempt to recover the real, or extra-mental, world through proofs for God's existence and divine veracity. Whatever our final assessment of the validity and soundness of these proofs may be, there can be no doubt that the judgment of history is that they fail, leaving Descartes' conception of the self forever confined to the (...) horizons of thought. Without the proofs for God's existence, Descartes becomes an idealist. Indeed, Kant labels him a "problematic idealist" for whom "there is only one empirical assertion that is indubitably certain, namely that 'I am'", suggesting that, as far as Kant is concerned, Descartes' attempt to prove the real existence of anything outside of his mind, including God, does not work. And Schopenhauer, just before claiming that "true philosophy must at all costs be idealistic," praises Descartes for finding the "only correct starting point... of all philosophy". Husserl is so taken by this starting point that he will title one of his introductions to pure phenomenology, Cartesian Meditations, thus inviting his reader to repeat Descartes' Meditations, this time, without the proofs for God's existence and divine veracity. Due to the tradition in which he has been passed down to us, Descartes may be called not only the "father of modern philosophy," but also "the grandfather of transcendental phenomenology." Oddly enough, evidence for this claim is seen in the fact that, at least within contemporary continental circles, Heidegger's reworking of the Husserlian project gets conceived as a simultaneous reworking of the Cartesian project. (shrink)

Does Descartes belong to metaphysics? What do we mean when we say "metaphysics"? These questions form the point of departure for Jean-Luc Marion's groundbreaking study of Cartesian thought. Analyses of Descartes' notion of the _ego_ and his idea of God show that if Descartes represents the fullest example of metaphysics, he no less transgresses its limits. Writing as philosopher and historian of philosophy, Marion uses Heidegger's concept of metaphysics to interpret the Cartesian corpus—an interpretation strangely omitted from Heidegger's own history (...) of philosophy. This interpretation complicates and deepens the Heideggerian concept of metaphysics, a concept that has dominated twentieth-century philosophy. Examinations of Descartes' predecessors and his successors clarify the meaning of the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. Expertly translated by Jeffrey Kosky, this work will appeal to historians of philosophy, students of religion, and anyone interested in the genealogy of contemporary thought and its contradictions. (shrink)

Heidegger’s early project aims to articulate the form of our being as Dasein, and he says that for this usually hidden form to become accessible, a certain kind of “mood” is required of the philosopher. This “ground-mood” he identifies in Sein und Zeit as anxiety. He also, however, presents anxiety as a mood anyone, philosopher or not, experiences when there is some significant breakdown in the living of her life. I argue here that there are largely unrecognized problems with this (...) conflation of methodological and “existential” moods, but that there is nevertheless a compelling methodological account of anxiety that can be teased apart from the existentialist one: methodologically understood, anxiety is a self-affected state of the ontologist, one that results from her asking ontological questions of herself, and, by imagining crisis or breakdown, withdrawing from her determinate situation to a position where she can see the form of her own activity as questioner and imaginer. I draw out some consequences this has for how we should understand the place of ontological understanding in living one’s life, and I conclude by briefly showing how my reading helps us see Heidegger as developing key elements in the work of Descartes and Kant. (shrink)

In this review essay, I take up a critical analysis of three recently published monographs in Heidegger-Nietzsche scholarship. Whilst their projects are diverse, I suggest that Winkler, Parra and Armitage are each fundamentally concerned with the critique of the Cartesian subject in Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche and attempt to varying extents to ground this problematization of subjectivity in the phenomenon of time. Nevertheless, whilst each emphasises the importance of time in understanding both Heidegger’s and Nietzsche’s critique of the subject, it (...) is surprising that they either underplay or misappropriate the significance of eternal recurrence, the temporal phenomenon which Heidegger defines as Nietzsche’s “thought of thoughts.” After engaging each account, my aim is to then consider how they might be critically re-framed in light of Heidegger’s interpretation of eternal recurrence which, I suggest, is fundamental to understanding Heidegger’s engagement with Nietzsche, as well as his own philosophical project more broadly. (shrink)

Deborah J. Brown - Descartes as a Moral Thinker: Christianity, Technology, Nihilism - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 46.1 173-175 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Reviewed by Deborah Brown University of Queensland Gary Steiner. Descartes as a Moral Thinker: Christianity, Technology, Nihilism. JHP Book Series. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2004. Pp. 352. Cloth, $60.00. This work takes as its starting point the need to ground Descartes's moral philosophy in something more fundamental (...) than human reason. Finding inspiration in Heidegger's lament, "In what soil do the roots of tree of philosophy find their support?" , Steiner proceeds to ground the "concrete content and absolute authority" of Descartes's moral principles in his Christian faith . This is a book with a mission: to keep the secularizing readers of Descartes's philosophy from the Church door. It stands as an important reminder that in understanding Descartes we cannot ignore his theology and achieves this goal in a lucid and erudite fashion. But the central tenet of the book—that Descartes subordinated much of his thinking about morals to the authority of religion—is, in my view, fundamentally mistaken. Steiner's Descartes is the pivotal transitional figure between the orthodox Christianity of the late scholastic period and the secular modernism of.. (shrink)

_Critical Heidegger_ brings together a selection of the best work on Martin Heidegger from a number of key commentators working in Europe. These new and classic essays, for the most part translated from German and French originals, are an essential guide to the current European reception of Heidegger and make available essays that have had considerable impact on English-language Heidegger studies. Essays in this collection: * Marlene Zarader, `The mirror with the triple reflection' * Franco Volpi, `Dasein and Praxis: Aristotle' (...) * Jean-Luc Marion, `Heidegger on Descartes' * Christopher Macann, `Heidegger's Kant Interpretation' * Michel Haar, `Critical Remarks on the Heideggerian Reading of Nietzsche' * Maria Villela-Petit, `Heidegger's Conception of Space' * Francoise Dastur, `The ekstatico-horizontal constitution of temporality' * F-W von Herrmann, `Way and Method in Philosophy' * Samuel Ijsseling, `The End of Philosophy as the Commencement of Thinking' * Otto Poggler, `Does the saving power also grow? Heidegger's last paths' * Ernst Tugendhat, `Heidegger's Idea of Truth' * Karl-Otto Apel, `Wittgenstein and Heidegger'. (shrink)

This critical survey of issues in European philosophy offers detailed accounts of crucial texts by important thinkers. Sedgwick draws key ideas from these sources, analyzing the various relationships between them and linking them to central themes in philosophical enquiry, such as the nature of subjectivity, reason and experience, anti-humanism, and the nature of language.Areas explored include epistemology, metaphysics and ontology, ethics and politics. Aspects of the work of a broad range of thinkers is considered in detail, including Descartes, Locke, Hume, (...) Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Adorno and Horkheimer, Heidegger, Deleuze and Guatarri, Levinas, Derrida, Althusser, Foucault and Lyotard. This intriguing new work presents the complex ideas of European philosophy in a straightforward manner, and will be of interest to both introductory and advanced-level readers. (shrink)

The spectre of Descartes figured as a perpetual presence in much of twentieth century philosophy, but nearly always as an emblem for positions to be avoided. Cartesian foundationalism in epistemology, the ontological dualism of mind and body, the associated conception of the mind as a substance, and as a “thing that thinks” – all these have figured in recent philosophy as positions to be refuted or simply renounced, the absurda in one or another reductio argument. But for one prominent twentieth (...) century tradition the story is much more nuanced and complex. Twentieth century phenomenology, which began to stir as a well-defined movement in the last decade of the nineteenth century and has persisted in one form or another into the twenty-first, found in Descartes much more a causa belli than the usual bête noire. As a first approximation we can say that allegiance to Cartesianism divided the phenomenological tradition. Edmund Husserl, who along with Franz Brentano is usually acknowledged as the founder of the phenomenological movement, described Descartes as “the genuine patriarch of phenomenology”; he dubbed his own transcendental phenomenology as “a new, twentieth century Cartesianism”, and insisted that “the only fruitful renaissance is the one which reawakens [Descartes’] Meditations” (Husserl 1929/1964, 3, 5). But Husserl’s most important assistant, Martin Heidegger, rebelled against the Cartesian legacy in modern philosophy, which he saw as the central wrong-turn in modern thought, and as the chief obstacle to a faithful phenomenology and phenomenologically informed ontology. The cogito sum, Heidegger insisted, must be “phenomenologically destroyed” (Heidegger 1927/1962, 123). In Descartes himself Heidegger found “an extreme.. (shrink)

The ideas of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger have been described as an intellectual time bomb, as some of the most revolutionary thought in western history. Despite the enormous amount of secondary scholarship available on Heidegger, it is–due to the complexity of his thought and the density of his writing–difficult for the curious beginner to gain an insight into Heidegger’s philosophy. Heidegger For Beginners serves as an entry into the ideas of one of the 20th century’s most important thinkers, situating (...) Heidegger’s thought within its philosophical and historical context–alongside such thinkers as Plato, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Husserl and Sartre. Heidegger For Beginners explicates many of Heidegger’s central ideas, including the Nothing , average everydayness, care, existence, be-in-the-world, the One , the critique of technology, anxiety, and most importantly, Being –a notion which may offer us the key to understanding the very mystery of our own existence. (shrink)