Der Begriff ‚Anlage‘ als Bestimmung des Seins bei Martin Heidegger

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-116
Author(s):  
Ales Novak

During the philosophical pathway of Martin Heidegger the 30s of the 20th century are a crucial period in respect of his effort to point out the temporal meaning of the notion of being. After the failure of his project of Being and Time he turned his attention towards pondering upon the (Hi)Story of being (Seinsgeschichte or Geschichte des Seins), leading him to the thought of the oblivion of being as well as of the forsakenness by the being. Within the eschatological perspectives after the end of metaphysics Heidegger arrives at the notion of Anlage, in which he means to articulate the temporal features of being corresponding to the mentioned epochal situation. The notion Anlage sums up the temporal features of setting, perpetuity, and presence, which according to Heidegger are notoriously associated with the notion of being within the metaphysics. Nonetheless, even this conceptual effort acts as a taking- off towards a far more radical phenomenology of world conceived as the fourfold of heaven and earth, the divine and the mortals.

Philosophy ◽  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis McManus

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is often described as one of the great philosophers of the 20th century. What is offered here addresses primarily his early work and, even so, only scratches the surface. As with all the great philosophers, there are different schools of thought on how Heidegger’s work should be read, and certain interpretive biases shape this bibliography. First, although Heidegger is perhaps the quintessential Continental philosopher, one of the distinguishing features of more recent work on Heidegger is the emergence of commentators with a background in analytic philosophy, and such “analytic” readings loom large in the present bibliography. A second and related bias is toward literature that is available in English; this bias is related to the first because “analytic” commentary is characteristically written in (or finds itself translated into) English. Although it is important to draw attention to these biases, they also ought not to be overemphasized. One reason is that there is a counter-balancing trend represented here, a trend toward placing Heidegger’s work in its historical context, both by considering his most widely-read work, Being and Time (BT), in relation to his other early writings and by tracing the role played in the emergence of BT by a set of distinctive shaping influences. This approach makes difficult any simple assimilation of Heidegger’s thought to alien traditions that might blind us to what is distinctive in his thought and some of the most interesting recent work combines a broadly analytic temper with this kind of historicist sensitivity. This bibliography divides the literature up into a number of distinct categories; but, as will be apparent, there is a certain artificiality to many of the distinctions in question. Readers should take care to read the paragraph of commentary that accompanies each set of citations, as one will find references to other relevant items listed—for various reasons—under other headings; readers ought not to assume that the topics with fewest citations “of their own” are less intensively discussed or that those citations are the most important for those topics. (The literature in this area is very large and, in constructing this bibliography, assistance has been provided by Taylor Carman, Steven Crowell, Simon Glendinning, Beatrice Han-Pile, Stephen Mulhall, Iain Thomson, Mark Wrathall, and Jonathan Webber.)


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Trawny

Writing an introduction to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger after the publication of the “Black Notebooks” is a daring venture. Heidegger's statements about "world Jewry" and his political stubbornness after the Second World War seriously incriminate his thinking. How can one go about introducing the reader into this philosophy without at the same time laying the ground on which these unacceptable ideas can grow? Peter Trawny´s critical introduction is conceived as a representation precisely of the problematic aspects of Heidegger's thinking. At the same time, though, it clearly points out its extraordinary importance in the context of 20th century philosophy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 196-223
Author(s):  
Alexander Medvedev

This article examines Marina Tsvetaeva’s modernist perception of the personality and paintings of the greatest representative of the Russian avant-garde of the 20th century in the essay “Natalia Goncharova. Life and Work” (“Наталья Гончарова. Жизнь и творчество”, 1929). Goncharova’s paintings that Tsvetaeva describes in her essay are indicated. The principles of modernist poetics and ekphrasis are revealed (lyrical subjectivism, ontology, consonance, anagrammatic disclosure of the inner form of a word, mythologization, reader co-creation, dialogism). The similarity between Tsvetaeva’s understanding of painting and poetry is compared to the ontological understanding of art by Martin Heidegger. This can be explained by the tradition of ontological poetry (Friedrich Hölderlin and Rainer Maria Rilke), which is important for both. The ontology of Goncharova’s painting is also considered in the context of the ontology of animals in Russian philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century (Vasily Rozanov) and in the Tahitian Painting of Paul Gauguin. Special attention is paid to ekphrastic poetics (style, tropes, consonance), with the help of which Tsvetaeva authentically transfers the ontologism of Goncharov’s painting in its stylistic diversity (cubism, neo-primitivism, rayonism) to the verbal level. Tsvetaeva and Goncharova in the respective Russian and European context (Gauguin, Rozanov, Heidegger, Rilke) appear as exponents of the ontological turn in the culture of the first half of the 20th century.


Author(s):  
Emmanuel Falque

In the account of the Passion, Christ takes on the characteristics of anxiety over death described by Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. He feels fear and anxiety. Experiencing fear regarding death, like all humankind, the Son of God sees “the cup” of the end of life, feels sorrowful to the point of death, and dreads the sleep of his disciples. Far from resigning himself to death, he feels the death of all the world (Péguy) and thus rejoins the life of all humankind, even including the fear of dying.


2021 ◽  
pp. 241-296
Author(s):  
Guy Elgat

This chapter argues that Martin Heidegger can be read as providing a synthesis of sorts of the views considered in the previous chapters. Specifically, it focuses on Heidegger’s analysis of Being-guilty in his Being and Time and argues that while for Heidegger we are indeed not causa sui, as the naturalists hold, we are nevertheless guilty as such or are characterized by ontological guilt, as the metaphysicians hold, and this is because for Heidegger, not being causa sui is a condition of our ontological guilt. Moreover, it is our Being-guilty that makes our factical or empirical guilt possible. After introducing some of the main concepts and themes of Heidegger’s discussion, the chapter turns to reconstruct Heidegger’s transcendental argument to the effect that our Being-guilty is a necessary condition of the possibility of factical guilt. It then turns to discuss Heidegger’s concepts of the call of conscience and of wanting-to-have-a-conscience.


Author(s):  
Udo Reinhold Jeck

Abstract It is a great loss to philosophy that Heraclitus’s writing was lost in antiquity, for the surviving fragments rarely contain more than one sentence. Often, they are succinct but concise statements that contain little text. So, when one succeeds in augmenting important fragments with a few words or illuminating their context, there is progress in Heraclitus research. Sometimes, however, this requires recourse to lineages outside the Greek-Latin tradition. An example of this is provided by fragment 123, which has played an important role since its discovery in the Orationes of Themistius: in the 20th century, Martin Heidegger used it several times for his idiosyncratic interpretation of Heraclitus and the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics. However, he did not consider that an Armenian variant of this fragment had become available at the beginning of the 19th century. This Armenian variant derives from a treatise of Philo of Alexandria which has only been transmitted in Armenian and offers more text than the Greek version. As Diels-Kranz did not include this Armenian source in their edition of The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics, this Armenian variant fell into oblivion and was not known to Heidegger either. Now this article, after introductory remarks on the transmission of Heraclitus’s sayings in Themistius and Philo’s Heraclitea, focuses on the history of the Armenian version of fragment 123 and its primary interpretations. It concludes with a reconstruction of the remarks which Ferdinand Lassalle dedicated to this fragment in both its Greek and Armenian versions in 1858.


Target ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-260
Author(s):  
Lavinia Heller ◽  
Spencer Hawkins

Abstract Even highly regarded translators cannot escape the common suspicion that philosophical ideas are not communicable in foreign languages – a suspicion that plagues philosophical translation. Translators effectively counter this distrust of translation when they explicitly claim to have collaborated with the author. This paper focuses on the Italian translation of Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) (first published in 1927; Heidegger 1986a), titled Essere e tempo (Heidegger 2006, trans. Marini), whose translator, Alfredo Marini, took particularly interesting measures to legitimate his work. This case is especially intriguing because Pietro Chiodi’s earlier translation (Heidegger 1953, 1976, 2005) is still popular in Italy despite Chiodi’s own complaints that the German text is untranslatable. The widespread acceptance of the earlier Italian translation presents a considerable problem of legitimation for Marini, who counters Chiodi’s views by arguing for the translatability of the text and supports his argument through a rhetorically constructed scene of collaborative translation. I begin this paper by retracing Marini’s strategy for presenting Essere e tempo (Heidegger 2006, trans. Marini) as a ‘translaboration’ (a collaborative translation), before addressing concerns that collaborative translation could hinder the translator’s creativity. I show that Marini’s translation achieves its most creative, and at times eccentric, effects through his close collaboration with the (deceased) philosopher, Martin Heidegger.


Author(s):  
Baylee Brits

Mathesis universalis is perhaps the ultimate formal system. The fact that the concept ties together truth, possibility, and formalism marks it as one of the most important concepts in Western modernity. “Mathesis” is Greek (μάθησις) for “learning” or “science.” The term is sometimes used to simply mean “mathematics”; the planet Mathesis, for instance, is named after the discipline of mathematics. It is philosophically significant when rendered as “mathesis universalis,” combining a Latinized version of the Greek μάθησις (learning) with the Latin universalis (universal). The most significant modern philosophers to develop the term were René Descartes (1596–1650) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), who used it to name a formal system that could support a project of scientia generalis (Descartes) or the ars combinatoria (Leibniz). In each case, mathesis universalis is a universal method. In this sense it does not constitute the content of the sciences but provides the formal system that undergirds no less than the acquisition and veracity of knowledge itself. Although mathesis universalis is only rarely mentioned in the literature of Descartes and Leibniz, philosophers including Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer, and Martin Heidegger considered it one of the key traits of modernity, breaking with the era of substance (Rabouin) or resemblance (Foucault) to signal a new period defined by formalism and quantification. Thus, in the 20th century, the scant and often contradictory literature on mathesis actually produced by the great philosophers of the Enlightenment comes to take on an importance that far exceeds the term’s original level of systematic elaboration. The term mathesis universalis was rarely used by either Descartes or Leibniz, and the latter used many different terms to refer to the same concept. The complexity and subtlety of the term, combined with difficulties in establishing a rigorous systematic interpretation, has meant that mathesis universalis is often used vaguely or to encompass all scientific method. It is a difficult concept to account for, because although many philosophers and literary theorists will casually refer to it, often in its abbreviated form (Lacan references mathesis in opposition to poesis to contrast the procedures of the sciences and the arts, for instance), there is not a great deal of consistent theoretical elaboration of the term in literary and cultural theory. Although mathesis universalis is not simply an avatar of mathematics, it is difficult to establish exactly where maths ends and mathesis begins, so to speak. The distinction is murky in both Descartes’s and Leibniz’s work, and this ambiguity would become a key controversy surrounding the term in the 20th century, with Bertrand Russell arguing that the significance of symbolic logic to mathesis universalis prevented it from being a “premier” science. Along with Russell, Ernst Cassirer and Louis Couturat would contest the relation between symbolic logic and the symbolic algebra of mathesis universalis, providing the terms of the debate for 20th-century philosophical work on ontology. Mathesis universalis was also a source of debate and controversy in the 20th century because it provided a node from which to examine the status of scientific truth. It is the work of 20th-century philosophers that expanded the significance of the term, using it to exemplify aspects of Enlightenment thought that many philosophers wished to react against, namely the aspiration to a universal science and the privileging of formal systems as avenues to truth. In this respect, the term is associated with Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and especially Michel Foucault, whose extensive work on the “classical episteme” provided a popular method of characterizing the development and enduring features of Enlightenment science. Although Foucault’s rendering of mathesis universalis as a “science of calculation” in The Order of Things (1970) is the most commonly used definition in literary and cultural studies, debates centering on Leibniz’s work in the early 20th century suggest that critics still took divergent approaches to the definition and significance of the term. It is Foucault who has popularized the contraction of the term to “mathesis.”


Author(s):  
◽  
VALTERS ZARIŅŠ ◽  

Book review focuses on two books by Gunther Neumann, dedicated to the thought of Heidegger and Leibniz. If one of the books deals specifically with the understanding of freedom in both of the two philosophers, then the other one deals more with Heidegger’s three approaches to Leibniz’s thought: (1) Interpretation of Leibniz in the context of the making of fundamental ontology and in Being and Time, as well as the reading of Leibniz after Being and Time; (2) Interpretation of Leibniz during the transition to Ereignis thought; (3) Interpetation of Leibniz in the framework of Ereignis thought. Author’s scrupulous close reading approach allows to show the changes in Heidegger’s approach to Leibniz’s philosophy, as well as sketch out the placement of Leibniz’s great themes on the horizon of Heidegger’s history of the truth of being. Author also shows that from metaphysics there stems a certain view in the modern philosophical discussions oriented on neurosciences—a certain view on the human being and on the freedom of will. On this background Heidegger appears as a thinker who has looked beyond the alloy of metaphysics and sciences, in which the concept of freedom has been greatly restricted. Heidegger manages (thanks to the radical questioning of Being) to turn the view on the problem of freedom, which appears in G. Neumann’s books as the main problem of philosophy—through the contact of Leibniz’s thought and Heidegger’s.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document