scholarly journals Identidad personal, ipseidad, alteridad y lenguaje en la obra de Martin Heidegger

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Luis Fernando Butierrez
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Siglo Xx ◽  
Pensamiento Filosofico

La siguiente investigación tiene como objetivo analizar pormenorizadamente las elaboraciones en torno a la ipseidad, la alteridad y el lenguaje en el pensamiento y discurso de Martin Heidegger, atendiendo desplazamientos y proyecciones en el despliegue de su propia obra y en determinadas recepciones contemporáneas, así como también su articulación en el marco de la tradición con la que dialoga, en especial, con los desarrollos de su maestro Edmund Husserl. Con ello, buscaremos circunscribir un horizonte dialógico en los actuales abordajes respecto a la condición humana y los procesos socio-políticos de subjetivación e identificación, en el ineludible marco de sus relaciones con la alteridad, con la intención de contribuir para la profundización, despliegue y continuación del alcance de tales debates contemporáneos. En ese sentido, consideramos que la experiencia del pensar de Heidegger se halla implícita en las bases de numerosos abordajes temáticos afines, indefectiblemente ligados también a sus perspectivas sobre el lenguaje. En efecto, las consideraciones sobre la autoconciencia y la identidad, con sus respectivas tensiones y reelaboraciones, representan un trayecto significativo del pensamiento occidental en el siglo XX y el nuestro. Específicamente, el desplazamiento desde las perspectivas existencialistas, al marxismo posterior a la segunda guerra mundial, pasando por el estructuralismo de la década del ´60, hasta arribar a la hermenéutica y al posestructuralismo de los últimos años, señalan un singular desplazamiento comprensivo en occidente. Enfoques que, a través del abandono de la conceptualización de la metafísica de la subjetividad y los supuestos de unidad de la conciencia trascendental, centralistas y jerárquicos, permiten reelaborar y articular las filosofías del sujeto con las del lenguaje, atendiendo un carácter escindido, mediado y diferido en su configuración socio-histórica. En ese contexto, los desarrollos de Heidegger han contribuido a reelaborar el discurso y el pensar respectivo, a partir de su replanteamiento del método fenomenológico y de la comprensión en torno al Dasein y sus relaciones mediadas con su sí-mismo, en el marco de su constelación entramada de estructuras. Así, la reconstrucción, análisis e interpretación de tales desarrollos, atendiendo minuciosamente sus variaciones y desplazamientos enunciativo-discursivos, en el contexto de su singular recepción de la tradición metafísica, articulado con las continuidades, rupturas y derivas de su recepción contemporánea, indican las diferentes paradas de nuestro recorrido por este tramo fundamental del pensamiento filosófico del siglo XX.

Buchbesprechungen

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-244
Author(s):  
Ralf Becker ◽  
Egbert Witte ◽  
Meike Siegfried ◽  
Ernst Wolfgang Orth ◽  
Annette Hilt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl

Edmund Husserl: Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1893-1912); Martin Heidegger: Geschichte der Philosophie von Thomas von Aquin bis Kant; Thomas Bedorf, Kurt Röttgers (Hg.): Die französische Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein Autorenhandbuch; Günter Figal: Verstehensfragen. Studien zur phänomenologisch-hermeneutischen Philosophie; Guy van Kerckhoven: Epiphanie. Reine Erscheinung und Ethos ohne Kategorie; Christian Lotz: From Affectivity to Subjectivity. Husserl’s phenomenology revisited; Claus Stieve: Von den Dingen lernen. Die Gegenstände unserer Kindheit

Jelena Osnobkina (1959–2010)

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-302
Author(s):  
Nelly Motroschilowa
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Political Engagement ◽  
Russian Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Theory ◽  
Philosophical Work ◽  
Soviet Russia

Abstract This archival feature serves to present the personality and philosophy of Elena Oznobkina (1959–2010), a key figure of late-Soviet and, later, Russian philosophy. Oznobkina pioneered the present-day reception of Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl in Russia, but also made substantial contributions to Nietzsche studies and political philosophy, which are detailed in Nelly Motrozhilova’s introduction. Her philosophical work was inseparable from her personal political engagement, to which the featured archival text (“Prison or Gulag?”, 2000) testifies. It gives a poignant and concise characterisation of the prison as an object of philosophical theory, while asking the question of where Soviet prison camps and the prisons of post-Soviet Russia are to be located within this field of thought.

scholarly journals SCIENZA, FENOMENOLOGIA E RIDUZIONE

Sapere Aude ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (13) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Paul Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Michel Henry

<p>La cultura filosofica e scientifica accede ai media solo nelle ore più buie della notte. Sarà quindi da abbandonare ai nottambuli? Husserl si chiedeva se la filosofia potesse essere una “scienza rigorosa”. Questa domanda avrà ancora un interesse? Non dovremmo però contestare l’unilateralità della deriva culturale dei nostri tempi e rivendicare per la riflessione fondamentale nuovi spazi d’interrogazione? Le scienze sono credibili soltanto perché offrono la possibilità di alimentare la potenza della tecnica? Non dobbiamo porre invece la domanda sul loro fondamento razionale; criticare la mentalità che si accontenta del loro successo tecnico? Tenteremo di rispondere a queste domande leggendo alcuni testi di Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger e Michel Henry. Il nostro intento è di capire il significato del termine “riduzione” in fenomenologia. Questo termine ha conosciuto alcune avventure. Indica, infatti, per un fenomenologo il metodo più radicale per fondare il senso delle attività umane, comprese quelle scientifiche.</p><div><br clear="all" /><div> </div></div>

scholarly journals Davos 1929: “¿Qué es el Hombre?” El desencuentro entre Cassirer y Heidegger. Razones filosófica y política

2021 ◽  
pp. 177
Author(s):  
Julio Quesada
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Transcendental Phenomenology ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Existential Philosophy ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
History Of

Mi ensayo ha querido explicar genealógicamente y de forma contextualizada el desencuentro entre Ernst Cassirer y Martin Heidegger en Davos, y la deriva de éste hacia el nazismo desde los presupuestos de su filosofía existencial. ¿Qué papel juega el antisemitismo espiritual en la crítica heideggeriana al neokantismo y la fenomenología trascendental? ¿Por qué la fenomenología de Edmund Husserl es "una monstruosidad"? ¿Por qué Kant se convierte en batalla y campo de batalla de la Kulturkampf? ¿Por qué se lee a Heidegger como se lee? ¿Qué sentido tiene la práctica de la historia de la filosofía en el “final” de la filosofía?My essay wanted to explain genealogically and in a contextualized way the disagreement between Cassirer and Heidegger in Davos, and its drift towards Nazism from the budgets of their existential philosophy. What role does spiritual anti-Semitism play in the Heideggerian critique of neo-Kantianism and transcendental phenomenology? Why is Husserl's phenomenology "a monstrosity"? Why does Kant become the battle and battlefield of the Kulturkampf? Why do you read Heidegger as you read? What is the meaning of the practice of the history of philosophy in the “final” of philosophy?

Phenomenology and History

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Françoise Dastur ◽  
Robert Vallier
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Wilhelm Dilthey ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Life Philosophy ◽  
New Perspective

This chapter examines the philosophical reflections of Wilhelm Dilthey, Edmund Husserl, and Martin Heidegger regarding the link between phenomenology and history. The philosophies of historicity developed in the climate of relativism that marked the failure of Hegelianism announce a new confrontation with G. W. F. Hegel and a new perspective on the relation of truth and history, which must not be confused with mere anthropocentrism. It is this new perspective on history that we see unfolding in the horizon opened by Husserl's phenomenology and prepared by certain aspects of “life- philosophy.” The chapter first considers Dilthey's concept of “historicity” before discussing the similarities of the Hegelian and Husserlian manners of thinking the subject of history. It also analyzes Heidegger's claim that finitude and historicity are essentially interconnected, with mortality constituting the hidden ground of the historicity of existence.

Temporality and Existence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Françoise Dastur ◽  
Robert Vallier
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Transcendental Phenomenology ◽  
The Other ◽  
Problem Of Time ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
New Beginning ◽  
Phenomenology Of Perception ◽  
The World ◽  
The One

This chapter brings Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, whose different phenomenological styles are normally opposed, into dialogue with Maurice Merleau-Ponty's claim that temporality is not a contingent attribute of existence. According to Merleau-Ponty, consciousness and the world, the inside and the outside, sense and non-sense, are interdependent beings. For Merleau-Ponty, the problem of time is the problem of the subject's relation to time. The chapter examines how Merleau-Ponty's position in Phenomenology of Perception becomes the intermediary position between, on the one hand, the completion of the tradition and the fulfillment of modernity represented by Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and, on the other hand, the “new beginning for thought” that Heidegger wants to promote, insofar as he attempts to assume or take on metaphysics.

Mathesis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baylee Brits
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Bertrand Russell ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Universal Method ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Mathesis Universalis

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.”

scholarly journals Ser-en-el-cuerpo: tentativas para un esclarecimiento sobre cómo aparece un cuerpo. En y mundo.

Daímon ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Juan José Garrido Periñán
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Pensamiento Filosofico

<p>El cuerpo ha sido un problema para la mayor parte del pensamiento filosófico. En concreto, para el filósofo alemán Martin Heidegger, quien apenas realizó algún comentario sobre el mismo. En nuestra meditación, por tanto, hemos intentado cuestionar, con la ayuda de algunos conceptos heideggerianos, la problemática de la corporalidad humana, entendiéndola como ser-en-el-cuerpo. Para ello, hemos comprendido a éste como “un comportarse”, en el horizonte fenomenológico de un “en” y un “mundo”. En relación a ello, se ha explicitado los equívocos de ciertas concepciones contemporáneas al considerar el cuerpo como significante hegemónico, a fin de proponer, a modo de esbozo, una cierta propedéutica  cuya principal tarea sea la de transparentar nuestro propio modo ser. Si transparentamos nuestro modo de ser, esclareceremos la problemática de la corporalidad. </p>

Derridean Poststructuralism, Deweyan Pragmatism, and Education

2017 ◽  
pp. 350-372
Author(s):  
Jim Garrison
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Philosophy Of Education ◽  
A Posteriori ◽  
Educational Issues ◽  
Metaphysics Of Presence ◽  
Hypostatic Abstraction

Derrida’s deconstruction and rejection of the metaphysics of presence is examined along with Ferdinand de Saussure’s influence on Derrida’s trace of différance. The influence of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger is considered regarding Derrida’s commitment to a priori transcendentalism along with his strident anti-empiricism. Derrida’s approach to educational issues is surveyed with emphasis on his deconstruction of rationality and construction of a series of educational aporias providing occasion for novel topoi. It is shown that Dewey too rejects the metaphysics of presence in ways integral to his philosophy of education. Dewey and Derrida agree on the inevitable openness to otherness and difference. Dewey’s empirical pluralism and perspectivism is discussed as an alternative to Derrida’s quasi-transcendental apriorism. The conclusion proposes that Derrida’s putatively a priori quasi-transcendental deconstructive trace of différance is an a posteriori consequence within the trace of genetic inquiry; specifically, it is, a reified hypostatic abstraction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document