Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:31:51 -0500
Subject: RE: Philosophy


At 4:55 PM -0700 8/30/02, Bob Guevara wrote:
>Anthony writes:
>>  Bob, I assume the "Anthony" to whom you were referring was me, since I
>>  don't
>>  remember any other Anthony posting recently. If it was me, thank you
>for
>>  the
>>  kind words, and if not, I hope you find my comments below helpful
>anyway.
>
>
>It is you that I refer to Anthony and thank you for responding [more
>below].
>
>
>>  Bob Guevara wrote:
>>
>>  >I didn't complete my last message but if you would be so kind, can
>you
>>  >say something about specifically why many speak of Hubert L. Dreyfus'
>>  >interpretation of Heidegger in terms of Philosophy of Mind.
>>
>>  This I'm not qualified to answer because I've never read Dreyfus
>myself,
>>  but
>>  only what others have said about him.
>>
>>  >   ...why do the Continentals generally look down on North American
>>  >Philosophers or do they?
>>
>>  Yes they do, and not just on North American philosophers, but on
>>  analytical
>>  philosophers in general (including British, for example). But they may
>>  have
>>  good reasons for this, due to the nature of analytical philosophy vs.
>>  phenomenology, which gets into your next question:
>>
>>  >   ...how does Analytic Philosophy compare specifically to
>Heidegger's
>>  >work?
>>
>>  The basic, rock-bottom way to compare any analytical philosophy to
>>  Heidegger's work is to ask the analytical philosopher one simple
>question:
>>  Are there beings in themselves? Analytical philosophy comes in many
>shapes
>>  and sizes, but they all have in common the condemnation of any talk of
>>  beings in themselves. Instead, they substitute linguistics, holistic
>>  "webs"
>>  of belief, and such things to ground the world we live in. So
>analytical
>>  philosophy is still in the mode which Heidegger calls the mode of
>knowing,
>>  because they think that it is impossible to escape all the traditional
>>  philosophical problems involved with "beings in themselves," so that
>the
>>  latter should be banished from any legitimate philosophical discourse.
>>  Heidegger, on the other hand, proposes a way to escape all those
>>  philosophical problems with beings in themselves, by relegating them
>to
>>  only
>>  ONE way in which encounter the world. Since the mode which Heidegger
>calls
>>  "readiness" is not reducible to sensations, concepts, and all such
>things
>>  upon which traditional skeptical objections depended, then it
>completely
>>  circumvents all the traditional objections against "beings in
>themselves."
>>  So basically, analytical philosophy implicitly assumes that there is
>only
>>  ONE mode of encounter with the world (knowing), so that the
>philosophical
>>  problems involved cannot be escaped.
>>
>>  This is why continental philosophy is somewhat justified in its
>>  condescending attitude towards analytical philosophy. Analytical
>>  philosophy
>>  does not even realize that the very reasons by which it banished
>things in
>>  themselves ultimately lead to the total denial of all human meaning
>>  whatsoever, since for them, all meaning and being is to be interpreted
>in
>>  terms of the mode of knowing only. There is nothing by which various
>"webs
>>  of belief" can be compared to one another, or by which various
>"language
>>  games" can be compared to one another, leaving all our beliefs
>>  meaninglessly
>>  arbitrary at bottom. At least Heidegger says that the mode of presence
>is
>>  SUBORDINATE to the mode of readiness, so that the world had to have
>>  ALREADY
>>  been discovered before we thought to deny it.
>>
>>  Anthony Crifasi
>
>Yes of course.
>Forgive me for not formulating my question as I intended it. It is more
>along the lines of my subsequent mail. My interest lies in gaining some
>insight into how Heidegger's early personal development [Logic,
>Mathematics, The Sciences] served as a foundation for the subordination
>of all of those. Looking from the result of his more mature thinking,
>it's like "of course," how blindingly ignorant traditional metaphysics
>has been. But what all is entailed in the arrival at his later thinking
>is what interests me most.

Such an arrival is difficult to "manage."  That's the exciting thing 
about "Befindlichkeit."  One does and doesn't  have control over how 
one finds oneself in-the-world.

Bob, you seem to find yourself-- or at least express your finding 
yourself-- in the form of a relatively non-committal questioning. 
How do you find that way of finding yourself?

Pardon me for prying.

Allen




-- 
  Allen Scult					Dept. of Philosophy
HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics":	Drake University
http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html	Des Moines, Iowa 50311
PHONE: 515 271 2869
FAX: 515 271 3826


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