|
noeatingallowed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
One time I put on a cape and went shopping and so I bought the pickles. The pickles purchased Me, not me, nor me them I did not them for pickles haven't got it quite right. I took the cape off and went home and then I was there.
theinternetscholar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Heidegger is much more than 'carpe diem' . . .
GordonMorrice (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This question about "authenticity" is the key, I feel, to the whole point of Heidegger's message to the world. It has slowly, but surely, crept into my way of thinking/being, though I do not claim to fully understand Heidegger's work.
PedroAlonsoLopez (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
They call it dreydegger. I think Searle coined it. Its a misinterpretation, but then again in the US its good to see Heidegger being discussed at all.
regalkidney (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think it's not uncommon for scholars to refer to Dreyfus's Heidegger as "Dreifegger" (they do the same thing with Kripke's Wittgenstein "Kripkenstein").This is a way of indicating that the interpretation is idiosyncratic and departs from the original Heidegger. But it also indicates that the hybrid creature has a vitality of its own. Personally, I much prefer Dreifegger to Heidegger.
Krelianx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
As for Heidegger's 'obscurity', that results from reading Being and Time separetely, without reading all the thorough lecture courses around the time, dealing with the transition from the traditional problems of the tradition to the new vocabulary. Being and Time is the analytic of Dasein, it is his constructive attempt at phenomenology. It is ridiculous to expect to pick it up and grasp what H is after without reading his reading of the tradition and terms. Understanding the German is crucial.
Krelianx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I find Dreyfus to be misinterpreting H in a rather serious way. He fails to acknowledge that entities ready-to-hand are not the same entities given to us in abstract observation through interruption: for Heidegger the mode of being of the ready-to-hand is not a bundle of entities being transparently coped with, but with what he calls an 'equipmental whole', which has its own relational structure. The story about familiarity and absorbed coping is secondary to that of how beings are determined.
Krelianx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
That is misleading: he says that about some parts, but he is not making a general point.
ExMachine (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I would add that on the 2007 Berkeley webcast Professor Dreyfus seems to find that Heideggers vocabulary is not used as rigorously as suggested here.
ExMachine (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes, i was wondering the same thing. I read on a blog (make of that what you will) that some of his interpretations may be considered quirky. He certainly does a good job of making Heidegger appear intelligible. It's not entirely clear to me though how much is Dreyfus and how much Heidegger. |
