Some remarks on Russian reception of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy in connection with the discussion of “Black notebooks”
Heidegger’s philosophy has an extraordinarily complex relationship to Plato. Heidegger sees Plato as the founder of that Western metaphysics which he claims should be overcome. However, his interpretation of Plato, upon which his reconstruction of the history of philosophy rests, is anything but incontestable from a philological point of view, and has generated much criticism. This criticism, however, has been hampered by the fact that the only example in Heidegger’s work of a detailed analysis of a Platonic dialogue, namely the Lectures on Plato’s Sophist held in Marburg in 1924–25, remained unpublished until 1992. Thus, only in the last twenty years have scholars been able to develop a more nuanced understanding of Heidegger’s interpretation of Plato. Even then, however, the focus has been primarily on the importance of the lectures for Heidegger’s own thought. The possible impact of Heidegger’s interpretation on the study of Platonic philosophy itself has been neglected. This volume, therefore, offers a critical re-evaluation of Heidegger as an interpreter of Plato.
The paper offers a review of positions held by prominent philosophers (Plato, Benjamin, Heidegger, Derrida) regarding the power of art. In spite of the essential differences between their approaches to art those thinkers displayed interest in the same questions and problems. That helps to reassess Plato’s harsh criticism of art, which turns out to be a fairly typical philosophical way of dealing with art. In an imaginary conversation with the contemporary thinkers Plato stands out, as he is aware of mission and influence of art in human life and intends his own philosophy to be politically responsible poetry.
The paper deals with M. Heidegger’s treatise On the essence of ground (Vom Wesen des Grundes, 1929) which analyzes the essence of principium rationis sufficientis from the perspective of fundamental ontology. The problem of ground discussed in the treatise is related to the following conceptual structure: ontological difference-transcendence-freedom. In my paper, I focus on the question of transcendence which is described as “the basic structure of subjectivity”. In order to clarify Heidegger’s main point regarding transcendence, I introduce the term “interest” and explain how transcendence as the finite human freedom can be the origin of “grounding”.
This study deals with the reception of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology in Martin Heidegger's fundamental ontology. The study targets those elements common to the two philosophic systems that explain how the phenomenology influences the launch of Martin Heidegger's basic philosophic attitudes, namely, Husserl's theory of intentionality and perception, material a priori and categorical contemplation, and specifically Husserl's transcendental philosophy.
The collective monogrtaph "Phänomenologie und Buddhismus" brings together research articles from philosophers as well as from specialists in oriental studies. In the center of attention stays the intersection between the phenomenological philosophical discourse and the (mostly far-eastern) buddhist tradition.
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger are arguably the two most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Their work not only reshaped the philosophical landscape, but also left its mark on other disciplines, including political science, theology, anthropology, ecology, mathematics, cultural studies, literary theory, and architecture. Both sought to challenge the assumptions governing the traditions they inherited, to question the very terms in which philosophy’s problems had been posed, and to open up new avenues of thought for thinkers of all stripes. And despite considerable differences in style and in the traditions they inherited, the similarities between Wittgenstein and Heidegger are striking. Comparative work of these thinkers has only increased in recent decades, but no collection has yet explored the various ways in which Wittgenstein and Heidegger can be drawn into dialogue. As such, these essays stage genuine dialogues, with aspects of Wittgenstein’s elucidations answering or problematizing aspects of Heidegger’s, and vice versa. The result is a broad-ranging collection of essays that provides a series of openings and provocations that will serve as a reference point for future work that draws on the writings of these two philosophers.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The Eastern or Crimean War (1853–1856) phenomenon is the reflection of fundamental conflicts of the era: the clash of empires’ interests and emerging centers of capital – financial elites. The Crimean War can be referred as a protoworld war even by just considering the number of participants. The participants were not united by a common interest, but rather by a common rival. With the commencement of military actions, a common rival became a common enemy. Wars of such a scale usually occur in transitional phases of history, for example, a period of transition from political stability to political fragmentation, or vice versa. The Crimean War was related to the phase of the first type: it destroyed international political stability – the Vienna system, and opened the gate for political instability. The war had a chronocultural sense and this is one of the Crimean War’s secrets.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.