From the Standford article in the section on Jaspers’ philosophical writings:
“At the same time, however, he also claimed that rationality possesses capacities of communicative integrity and phenomenological self-overcoming, and, if authentically exercised, it is able to escape its narrowly functional form, to expose itself to new contents beyond its limits and antinomies, and to elaborate new and more cognitively unified conceptual structures.”
In " Way to Wisdom" Jasper’s argues: “Fundamentally we can express the reality of the world as the phenomenality of empirical existence. Everything we have said thus far: that there is an element of suspension in all modes of reality; that the world systems represent merely relative perspectives; that knowledge has the character of interpretation; that being is manifested in the dichotomy of subject and object–our whole characterization of the knowledge to which man can attain–implies that objects are mere appearances; no being that we know is being in itself and as a whole. The phenomenality of the empirical world was made fully clear by Kant.”
The transcendental phenomenological method Husserl conceived in the early 20th century borrows themes from both Descartes and Kant. It is a first person reflection on consciousness or the cogito. Husseral describes consciousness in its naive or natural state as immersed in the world of things, persons and other entities. He recommends that we suspend this natural attitude in order to reflect philosophically on conscious life in an unprejudiced way. He adopted the Kantian designation transcendental idealism which for him meant that all reality is analyzed strictly in terms of the meaning it has for a consciousness. Yes the world transcends and thus is not reducible to the consciousness we have of it, but that’s precisely the meaning consciousness but bestows on it. Phenomenology focuses on how this meaning occurs. It doesn’t explain a firm or deny the transcendence of the world it seeks to understand what it means. That’s what gives it its name transcendental phenomenology. Incidentally Jasper’s referred to this horizon of experience as the encompassing. So we might say Kant’s copernican revolution necessitated modern phenomenology. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy reflects a profound phenomenological influence.
… ok buddy…all physics and mathematics and cultural shifts(Copernican revolution), Descartes writing on irreducibility of the world to machine and Kant’s philosophical system led to phenemonology… Do you want to name drop even more??? Did Christianity lead to phenemonology? Was the Trojan war a preface to Husserl’s insights? Maybe Hegelian book on phenemology also??? Are you stoupid? The only philosophical work worth reading from Wittgenstein is his early philosophy contained in his tractatus, he went mystic later in his life and found a fertile pseudoscience in phenemology which could be used to philosophically argue for the ‘Christian god’. Jaspers was not a phenomologist, if anything he would be a neo-Kantian, quasi-romantic existentialist. What did you read from Jaspers that makes you so sure he is a phenomenologist???which book???
In addition to the references I cited about Jasper’s exposition of the being of encompassing in his book “Philosophy of Existence” is essentially phenomenological and parallels Heidegger in significant ways.
Ok, you got me. Cartesians who viewed the world empirically and reduced it to numbers of sets are what gave birth to phenemonology and Karl jaspers was a phenomologist because he used a phrase ‘horizon of existence’ and because Heidegger used da-sein also…you got me buddy.
Would you be so kind as to provide a few sentences defining da-sein as Heidegger understood it?
Heidegger understands Dasein as the “being that we ever are ourselves” (Being and Time, 1927, p. 7) as the “being of man” (Being and Time, 1927, p. 25) and thus demarcates his philosophy against a philosophy of pure consciousness (cf. transcendentalism) and also against a merely material-empiricist conception of Dasein (cf. positivism).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“This being, which we ever are ourselves, and which has, among other things, the being-possibility of questioning, we grasp terminologically as Dasein.” (Being and Time, p. 7).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“To be sure, Dasein is ontically not only close or even the next - we are it ever ourselves. Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, it is ontologically the most distant.” (Being and Time, p. 15).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“Dasein, i.e. the being of man, is circumscribed in the vulgar as well as in the philosophical ‘definition’ as zóon lógon 'ékon , the living, whose being is essentially determined by being capable of speaking.” (Being and Time, p. 25).
The existence of the human being is used by means of an analysis of existence to reveal the essence and meaning of being (present in the human being).
The basis for being and the doctrine - the basic doctrine of being - is offered by Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, laid down in his main work „Being and Time“, and denotes the results of his investigations of (human) Dasein for the purpose of opening up being (as a being that is also present in Dasein, a being that understands itself) and the meaning of being. The fundamental ontology shows how that is manifested in Dasein (see: existentials); it wants to be the basis for all empirical sciences.
The existentials are the ways of human existence, the categories of human being, with Heidegger above all the angst (fear, anxiety), furthermore the being-in-the-world, the concern (worry, care, welfare, getting, providing, managing, anxiety), the understanding, the mood, the thrownness and many others.
Check into a psychiatrist. Da-sein is being as in living and da-sein is da-sein in da-sein as in being as in living and as this da-sein in da-sein becoming aware of this da-sein which is a da-sein itself. And this being of living is above human emotions and susceptible to ‘throwness’ which is??? Being in being being in being and being thrown around by being in being which can see its own being in being by standing beyond human anxieties by being in being properly being in being???not a hint of quackery here, not a sprinkle…
Any philosopher can be caricaturized. Caricaturization is not refutation. Logically caricature is a form of the straw man fallacy. Yours is funny though. And I suppose Heidegger’s philosophy seems something like that to you.
Its not a strawman. Which quote is not by Heidegger???
[i]The human being is not the lord of beings, but the shepherd of Being.
Martin Heidegger[/i]
[i]To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics.
Martin Heidegger[/i]
“Understanding of being is itself a determination of being of Da-sein.”
Da-sein is being as in living and da-sein is da-sein in da-sein as in being as in living and as this da-sein in da-sein becoming aware of this da-sein which is a da-sein itself.
Hopefully the last one. Lol. But the fact that Heidegger’s thinking is sometimes abstruse, is insufficient grounds for wholesale rejection of his philosophy, much less for the rejection of phenomenology as a whole. It makes me wonder where you stand to make these criticisms, or conversely where philosophy stands in your point of view, point of view being a metaphor for the locus of consciousness, or as Heidegger would put it–Dasein.
I am an Aristotelian. I believe in philosophy constrained by logic and as a derivative of hard sciences which tackles questions which sciences can’t tackle by their functional design. I think trying to ‘reason out christianity’ out of philosophy like Heidegger does to be missing the point completely. Philosophy is not a theology. The neo-nazis that drag behind Heidegger like a big hissing fart cloud because he was a member of NSDAP are a separate matter.
Heidegger is recognized worldwide. He also had almost nothing to do with the NSDAP, because he regarded it as an eco-party (something like the later party “Die Grünen”). One can sometimes get lost in a party. Many people were also once in a party and then realized that this party was not the right address for them. Heidegger was quite apolitical.
Heidegger’s existential philosophy with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.) offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He came from the phenomenology of Husserl (a Jew who was allowed to stay in Germany until his death in 1939 - was he also in the NSDAP?), which is also recognized worldwide.
The way Heidegger understood “existence” is perhaps closest to the concept Kierkegaard had of it. Otherwise, Heidegger’s philosophy is unique, one of a kind. He did something philosophically that no one had ever done before. As I said, Heidegger’s existential philosophy, with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.), offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He knew very well what problems there were with regard to cognition and that for the sciences and all other alternatives to it that had arisen until then, much had been presupposed but always remained hidden, which is even more the case today. It is always good to be able to fall back on alternatives. The fact that this does not always happen has to do with financing, i.e. with money and thus with power.
Heidegger was in the history of mankind the first philosophic ecologist, the first ecosophist, as one could say, and the first chrirotopologist.
