Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:49:47 +0100
Subject: Re: Routledge Guidebook to Being and Time


Stuart Elden wrote:

> I'm sure a case could be made that Mulhall's introduction is,
> itself, an interpretation: I'd like to see
> someone do it (and that's meant as a request, not a challenge).

Mulhall does say somewhere:

"But my interpretation of Being and Time takes up an
unorthodox position on a highly controversial issue
in Heidegger scholarship; the reader unfamiliar with
that scholarship should be warned of it in advance.
Particularly with respect to the material in the
second half of Being and Time, I regard Heidegger's
treatment of the quesion of human authenticity as
necessarily and illuminatingly applicable to his
conception of his role as a philsopoher, and so to
his conception of his relation to his readers." (xi)

Dreyfus's approach is a different one:

"These new publications also confirmed a hypothesis
John Haugeland and I made in 1978 that Being and Time
could be understood as a systematic critique of
Husserl's phenomenology, even though Husserl and his
basic concept, intentionality, are hardly mentioned
in the book. [...] It also justified my emphasis on
the nonmentalistic approach to intentionality in
Being and Time [...]" (ix).

I agree with Elden that Dreyfus's commentary on Being 
and Time is somehow different from Mulhall's -  and 
Luckner's, a German alternative for Mulhall. But not 
because Dreyfus could be read as "a substitute for B&T; 
and perhaps Mulhall is generally read by those who are 
using it as a supplement", as Elden suggests. Dreyfus 
can be read as an interpretation of Heidegger's early 
philosophy in its own right. Mulhall and Luckner are 
interesting sparring partners for those who want to 
compare their own reading of Being and Time with 
someone else's.

Henk



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---