File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0101, message 30


Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:55:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Gary Moore <gottlos45-AT-mail.com>
Subject: FWD: Re: How Not to Read Professor Dreyfus


------Original Message------
From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi-AT-statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
To: Gary C Moore <gottlos75-AT-mindspring.com>
Sent: January 8, 2001 5:04:26 PM GMT
Subject: Re: How Not to Read Professor Dreyfus


Dear Mr. Gary Moore,

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Gary C Moore wrote:
> Dear Arun,
>     I have tried everything I know to access this article. I keep getting
> the same notice that this page is unavailable. I have tried clicking on
the
> http here, I have tried typing in the web address direct, I have tried
> looking up BYU and their humanities page will not come on line, I have
found
> one very specic reference to specifically this paper by Mark Wrathall but,
> again, "This page not available." Do you have any suggestions? I think I
had
> this problem the first time you sent me the letter also. Thank you for
your
> patience.

Hello --many thanks for the above. I don't know really, which computer
you're using. Or may be you're not typing well the URL. Btw, at this end
the paper works very well..I have downloaded.

Here is one suggestion--
Since, you have been facing some problems in downloading the paper, that
is why I am attaching the same paper in normal TEXT format to this
message, so that you could read it well.

PS: I admire your hard works of Professor Dreyfus's readings of Heidegger
and Michel Foucault..But..the messages are very long.

With sincere regards
Arun Tripathi

> 'Sincerely'
>
> Gary C. Moore
>
> P. S. How am I 'misreading' Dreyfus if I have plainly demonstrated Dreyfus
> is ignoring - for good reason from his point of view - the basic
> existentialist and 'sophisticated solipsistic' aspects of Heidegger? I
> understand perfectly well there can be no social engineering with the
> manipulation  of "background practices" and "marginal practices" if real,
> though 'sophisticated',  solipsism is taken into fundamental account, but
> that is what I am saying Heidegger is 'all about' and what Dreyfus is
doing
> may be good Dreyfus - and he does establish a good position based on PART,
> and JUST PART of what Heidegger says, that must be taken account of - but
> this is NOT a good representation and understanding of the whole and real
> Heidegger at all.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi-AT-statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
> To: Gary C Moore <gottlos75-AT-mindspring.com>
> Cc: <gottols45-AT-mail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 10:21 AM
> Subject: How Not to Read Professor Dreyfus
>
>
> > Dear Mr. Gary Moore,
> >
> > Thanks for the below. I would like to give my reactions on the below
> > threads, and in doing so..I would be following the philosophy of "Think
> > before jumping on the Conclusions". With interests --I read all your
> > reactions towards Professor Hubert Dreyfus's reading of Heidegger
(because
> > I am very much interested in Dreyfus's writings and observations), which
> > seems to me not quite on target. You have somewhat misunderstood his
> > claims, as Professor John Searle has misunderstood his claims of
> > phenomenology.
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Gary C Moore wrote:
> > > Dear Arun-Kumar Tripathi,
> > >      This was an extremely important message to me because I also have
> been
> > > criticising Doctor Dreyfus and wondering if possibly I have misread
him
> > > myself, specifically his essay at his web-site called "Could anything
be
> > > more Intelligible than Everyday Intelligibility?: Reinterpreting
> Division I
> > > of BEING AND TIME in the light of Division II," and I have been
feeling
> > > guilty that maybe I did not give him a fair hearing. I did this mixed
> into a
> > > number of installments available at various relevant sites called 'The
> > > Necessity of Debate II: Heidegger on Sociology and Psychology' that is
> now
> > > into Part 17. I essentially attack his idea of the socially helpful
> expert
> > > who has still risen above normal, everyday standards asking why is
this
> > > 'wise' person doing such things in the first place. But, having read
and
> > > admired his book on Division I of BEING AND TIME, I wonder if I went
too
> far
> > > on insufficient grounds. Have an opinion? I am going to print the
essay
> out
> > > as soon as I am through here. Thanks again!
> >
> > I hope, up till now you would have printed, read and gone through the
> > below essay written Professor Mark Wrathall. If yes, then you would have
> > quite understood his points. And, if not then I would like to point out
> > some ideas illustrated by Mark Wrathall. "..If one is interested in
> > Dreyfus's views of matter (which in my view Professor Wrathall meant
*the
> > Dreyfus's readings of Heidegger and his book on Heidegger*), one might
> > also consult his detailed study of the subject in published essays like
> > *Heidegger's History of the Being of Equipment*, in Heidegger: A
Critical
> > Reader, edited by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Harrison Hall (Blackwell:
> > Cambridge, 1992).." Mark Wrathall further illustrates very clearly,
"..for
> > instance, one could easily counter the contention that Dreyfus's reading
> > is universally dismissed by competent Heidegger-scholars--it would be an
> > easy matter, for instance, to demonstrate that even the "second
generation
> > of French Heidegger scholars" (including figures like Michel Foucault,
who
> > was a friend and admirer of Dreyfus, or Michel Haar who was called
> > Dreyfus's reading of the late Heidegger "brilliant" respect Dreyfus's
> > work on Heidegger. One of the Dreyfus's great virtues as a commentator
on
> > Heidegger is, in my opinion, his accessibility. Heidegger himself (some
> > might say ironically) objected to philosophers whose authority is based
> > exclusively on the fact that they are not understood. (Ref: The
> > Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, page: 13) Dreyfus has gone a long
way
> > toward dispelling this sort of authority which Heideggerians all too
often
> > wield, and replacing it with a demonstration that Heidegger is an
> > important figure for the power of his ideas...."
> >
> > More later..
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Sincerely
> > Arun Kumar Tripathi
> > (PS: please call me by first name)
> >
> >
> > > 'Sincerely'
> > > Gary C. Moore
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi-AT-statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
> > > To: Gary C Moore <gottlos75-AT-mindspring.com>
> > > Cc: Gary Moore <gottlos45-AT-mail.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:24 AM
> > > Subject: Prof. Mark Wrathall on Hubert Dreyfus
> > >
> > > > Dear Mr. Gary Moore,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for your messages. Do you also know, that Mark
> > > > Wrathall (a close colleague of Prof. Dreyfus) has also written an
> essay
> > > > "How Not to Read Dreyfus", in which -he mentioned the reason of
> > > > Prof. Anderson not understanding the Heidegger in his -presentation
> *How
> > > > Not to Read Heidegger* -- Prof. Wrathall has said, "Prof. Anderson's
> > > > Presentation left appearance that Hubert L. Dreyfus's reading of
> Heidegger
> > > > (and, by implication, my reading of Heidegger) is not just wrong,
but
> > > > incompetent." Actually, with this essay, Prof. Mark Wrathall has
given
> a
> > > > response to Prof. Anderson's presentation. He has responded his
> > > > presentation, and tried to indicate "how one should proceed if one
> were
> > > > genuinely interested in understanding and evaluating Dreyfus's
> > > > interpretation of Heidegger."
> > > >
> > > > Above talk was presented at a conference, in which great
philosophers
> > > > like, Hubert Dreyfus, John Sallis, Simon Critchley, John Caputo,
> Albert
> > > > Borgmann, Mark Okrent, Robert Bernasconi, and others have also
> presented
> > > > their works.
> > > >
> > > > Hi, you can also read his complete essay (a response to Prof.
> Anderson's
> > > > presentation) on the Web at
> > > > <http://humanities.byu.edu/Philosophy/club1.html>
> > > >
> > > > Thank you once again..
> > > >
> > > > Yours Sincerely
> > > > Arun Tripathi
============================================================================"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think." -SOCRATES
============================================================================Research Scientist and Scholar, ONLINE INTERNET EDUCATOR on the GLOBAL
SCALE, Research Associate of Olympia Educational Systems Institute (OESI)
(http://www.oesi.org)
Appointed Officer: WAOE Multilingual Coordinator on Public Info Committee
(http://www.waoe.org)
Arun Tripathi's Global Education Projects
<http://www.angelfire.com/ks/learning/index.html>
National Advisory Board Member for AmericaTakingAction, National Network
Karen Ellis's The Educational Playground at <http://www.edu-cyberpg.com>
Join the *Philosophical Implication in AI* mailing list
(http://philai.listbot.com)
PrevGES News Editor <http://www.groups.com/group/prevges/info.html>
The Internet in Education at:
<http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/tripathi.htm>
E-mail: <tripathi-AT-statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Moderator for Online-Ed Listserv
Internet Search Expert, EdResource Listserv Moderator
<http://www.egroups.com/group/edresource/info.html>
<http://www.angelfire.com/ks/learning/EdResource.html>
MEMBER, IEEE Computer Society: <http://www.computer.org>
============================================================================
--------------------------------
How Not to Read Dreyfus
Mark A. Wrathall
wrathall-AT-byu.edu
phone: 378-4821
Professor Anderson's presentation "How Not to Read Heidegger" left the
appearance that Hubert L. Dreyfus's reading of Heidegger (and, by
implication, my reading of Heidegger) is not just wrong, but incompetent. 
It is this feature of Professor Anderson's presentation to which I would
like to respond.  I do not intend a detailed discussion of the issues in
Heidegger scholarship to which Professor Anderson referred, but rather hope
only to indicate how one should proceed if one were genuinely interested in
understanding and evaluating Dreyfus's interpretation of Heidegger.
First, Professor Anderson claimed that Dreyfus's commentary on Division 1 of
Heidegger's Being and Time is crucially flawed because he does not address
Division 2 of Being and Time in general and fails to understand the concept
of temporality developed in Division 2 in particular.  What Professor
Anderson did not note is that Dreyfus includes a 50+ page appendix on
Division 2, and refers throughout the commentary to Division 2 where
necessary for explaining issues in Division 1.  Dreyfus also has a whole
chapter-chapter 14-on care and temporality.  This chapter is primarily drawn
from Division 2.  Indeed, as is apparent from the sentence immediately
preceding one which Professor Anderson quoted, Dreyfus recognizes that "the
chapters [of Being and Time] on originary temporality are an essential part
of Heidegger's project" (Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's
Being and Time, Division 1, p. viii).  One might have a substantive
disagreement with Dreyfus's view of temporality, but it is incorrect to
represent him as failing to recognize the importance of the subject for
Heidegger, or as having nothing to say on the subject whatsoever.
Professor Anderson similarly critiqued Dreyfus for referring to "human
being" rather than "Dasein" in his commentary.  He claimed that in doing
this, Dreyfus inexcusably followed Sartre's mistaken reading of Being and
Time.  He also quoted Being and Time to the effect that Heidegger's very
purpose for using the term "Dasein" was to avoid the baggage which comes
from the traditional use of the term "human being."  He thus left the
impression that Dreyfus was incapable of reading Being and Time at even a
rudimentary level.  What Professor Anderson did not note was that Dreyfus
devotes the whole first chapter of his book to discussing Heidegger's use of
the term "Dasein."  Dreyfus specifically addresses how Heidegger's focus on
Dasein is meant to be different than traditional approaches to the study of
human being, and discusses the mistake that Sartre and others have made in
interpreting Heidegger's work.  Once again, it would be interesting to
substantively discuss and critique Dreyfus's account of Dasein.  But
Professor Anderson's criticism is unfair because, contrary to what he
suggests, Dreyfus does in fact recognize that something is at stake in
Heidegger's emphasis on Dasein, and spends a considerable amount of time
explaining just what that is.  Indeed, for those mystified by Heidegger's
use of jargon like "Dasein," Dreyfus's discussion is an excellent place to
begin in making sense of Heidegger.
Along the same lines, Professor Anderson criticized Dreyfus for failing to
recognize that Heidegger's views on equipment were modified in his later
essay "The Origin of the Work of Art" and the essays on technology.  But in
fact Dreyfus, in his commentary, makes the very point Anderson used to
criticize him:
One might wonder whether later Heidegger still held that availableness and
occurrentness [the modes of being of equipment] were the basic ways of being
of entities other than Dasein.  Already in Being and Time he did not think
they were the only such ways of being (see the discussion of the primitive
view of nature in chapter 6 [of Being-in-the-World), and with his later
descussion of things and works of art he introduced detailed accounts of
several other ways (p. 84).

If one is interested in Dreyfus's views on the matter, one might also
consult his detailed study of the subject in published essays like
"Heidegger's History of the Being of Equipment," in Heidegger: A Critical
Reader, ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Harrison Hall (Blackwell: Cambridge,
1992).
One could make many more similar objections to Professor Anderson's
presentation..  For instance, one could easily counter the contention that
Dreyfus's reading is universally dismissed by competent Heidegger
scholars-it would be an easy matter, for instance, to demonstrate that even
the "second generation of French Heidegger scholars" (including figures like
Michel Foucault, who was a friend and admirer of Dreyfus, or Michel Haar who
has called Dreyfus' reading of the late Heidegger "brilliant") respect
Dreyfus' work on Heidegger.  Charles Taylor has written of the "immense
contribution" made in contemporary philosophy by Dreyfus's commentary on
Heidegger.  I could go on, but as Professor Anderson correctly noted,
philosophical issues should not be resolved by appeals to authority. 
Rather, I would encourage anyone interested in this little controversy to
read Dreyfus's works.  One of Dreyfus's great virtues as a commentator on
Heidegger is, in my opinion, his accessibility.  Heidegger himself (some
might say ironically) objected to philosophers whose authority is based
exclusively on the fact that they are not understood (The Fundamental
Concepts of Metaphysics, p. 13).  Dreyfus has gone a long way toward
dispelling this sort of authority which Heideggerians all too often wield,
and replacing it with a demonstration that Heidegger is an important figure
for the power of his ideas.  I hope the result of Professor Anderson's
presentation will be to generate genuine interest in Heidegger and Dreyfus. 
To further this end, I would be happy to discuss issues in Heidegger
interpretation with anyone who should care to do so.
Students may be interested to know that Professor Faulconer and I have been
organizing a conference to be held in Park City next May 20-22 in which
different approaches to reading and interpreting Heidegger will be presented
and discussed.  We have recruited a very broad range of Heidegger scholars
to participate, including Hubert Dreyfus, John Sallis, Simon Critchley, John
Caputo, Albert Borgmann, Mark Okrent, Robert Bernasconi and others.  We hope
that this conference will produce a fruitful dialogue between many different
schools of Heidegger interpretation.  Students are welcome to attend this
conference, and should watch for announcements regarding it during the
coming months.
Last updated on 11 Nov 98 | BYU Home | Phil Home | Site Comments |
Department Comments


........................................................ 
iWon.com       http://www.iwon.com     why wouldn't you? 
........................................................



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005