Subject: Re: Routledge Guidebook to Being and Time
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:48:53 -0000


Henk,

Thanks for those thoughts. I guess my position re Mulhall/Dreyfus is looking
increasingly untenable. I still have a gut feeling that I'm right to
distinguish between what their books do, but I'm not sure how to justify it.
Surely I'm not the only one out there who has some problems with Dreyfus'
Heidegger?

You say

>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 [Stuart] Elden suggests.

I really want to stress that I don't think either ARE a substitute, but that
Dreyfus' book IS used as one.

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.


I don't disagree with this, but suspect that many people read Dreyfus,
Mulhall (or Luckner) BEFORE B&T, not after it. i.e. the read it to help find
a way in, rather than to compare their readings, etc. I still feel Mulhall
introduces B&T in a more useful way than Dreyfus. Though again, it is NOT a
substitute.

Stuart





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