Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:33:19.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anthropocentrism without a centre?

A reply to Håkan karlsson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Julian Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I am grateful to Håkan Karlsson for his thoughtful commentary on some of the issues concerning Heidegger and archaeology which were raised in a previous issue of this journal, and find myself fascinated by his project of a ‘contemplative archaeology’. However, one or two points of clarification could be made in relation to Karlsson's contribution. Firstly, as a number of authors have pointed out (e.g. Anderson 1966, 20; Olafson 1993), the gulf between Heidegger's early work and that which followed the Kehre may have been more apparent than real. While his focus may have shifted from the Being of one particular kind of being (Dasein) to a history of Being (Dreyfus 1992), the continuities in his thought are more striking. Throughout his career, Heidegger was concerned with the category of Being, and the way in which it had been passed over by the western philosophical tradition. It is important to note that in Being and time the analysis of Dasein essentially serves as an heuristic: the intention is to move from an understanding of the Being of one kind of being to that of Being in general. What complicates the issue is the very unusual structure of this specific kind of being, for Heidegger did not choose to begin his analysis with the Being of shoes or stones, but with a kind of creature which has a unique relationship with all other worldly entities. ‘Dasein’ serves as a kind of code for ‘human being’ which enables Heidegger to talk about the way in which human beings exist on earth, rather than becoming entangled in biological or psychological definitions of humanity. In this formulations, what is distinctive about human beings is that their own existence is an issue for them; Dasein cares, and this caring is fundamentally temporal.

Type
Notes
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 119 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J.M., 1966: Introduction, in Heidegger, M.Discourse on thinking, New York, 1–39.Google Scholar
Di Censo, J., 1990: Hermeneutics and the disclosure of truth. A study in the work of Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H., 1992: Heidegger's history of the Being of equipment, in Dreyfus, H. and Hall, H. (eds) Heidegger. A critical reader, Oxford, 173–85.Google Scholar
Emad, P., 1995: “Heidegger I”, “Heidegger II”, and Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), in Babich, B. E. (ed.), From phenomenology to thought, errancy, and desire, Dordrecht, Boston and London, 129–146.Google Scholar
Ferry, L., and Renaut, A. 1988: Heidegger et les modernes, Paris.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 1996: Can we take the Aryan out of Heideggerian, Archaeological dialogues 3, 22–25.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1943: Vom Wesen der Wahrheit, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1947: Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit. Mit einem Brief über den ‘Humanismus’, Bern.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1950: Holzwege, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1953: Einführung in die Metaphysik, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1954a: Vorträge und Aufsätze, Pfullingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1954b: Was heisst Denken, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1957: Identität und Differenz, Pfullingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1959: Gelassenheit, Pfullingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1961: Nietzsche, zweiter Band, Pfullingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962a: Die Technik und die Kehre, Pfullingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1962b: Die Frage nach dem Ding, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1966: Discourse on thinking, New York.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1969: Zur Sache des Denkens, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1971: The origin of the work of art, in Heidegger, M., Poetry, language, thought, New York, 15–88.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1977a: Building dwelling thinking, in Krell, D.F. (ed.) Martin Heidegger. Basic writings, London, 319–40.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1977b: The question concerning technology, in Heidegger, M., The question concerning technology and other essays, New York, 3–35.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1989: Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), Frankfurt (Gesamtausgabe 65).Google Scholar
Heidegger, M., 1993: Letter on humanism, in Krell, D.F. (ed.) Martin Heidegger: basic writings (Second Edition), London, 213–65.Google Scholar
Kockelmans, J. J., 1984: On the truth of being. Reflections on Heidegger's later philosophy, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Küchler, S., 1996: The liquidiation of material things, Archaeological dialogues 3.1, 26–28.Google Scholar
Macomber, W. B., 1967: The anatomy of disillusion. Martin Heidegger's notion of truth, Evanston.Google Scholar
Marion, J-L., 1987: L'ego et le, Dasein., Heidegger, et la “destruction” de Descartes dans Sein und Zeit, Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 25-53.Google Scholar
Olafson, F.A., 1993: The unity of Heidegger's thought, in Guignon, C. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Heidegger, Cambridge, 97–121.Google Scholar
Oudemans, T. C. W., 1996: Heidegger and archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 3.1, 29–32.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. E., 1988: Hermeneutics. Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer, Evanston.Google Scholar
Patton, M., 1996: The phenomenology of the British Neolithic, Archaeological dialogues 3.1, 23–34.Google Scholar
Pöggeler, O., 1973: ‘Historicity’ in Heidegger's Late Work, Southwestern journal of philosophy 4, 53–73.Google Scholar
Pöggeler, O., 1984: Heidegger und die hermeneutische Philosophie, Freiburg and München.Google Scholar
Pöggeler, O., 1996: Does the saving power also grow?, in Macann, C.(ed.) Critical Heidegger, London, 206–226.Google Scholar
Stambaugh, J., 1995: The Turn, in Babich, B. E. (ed.) From phenomenology to thought, errancy, and desire, Dordrecht, Boston and London, 209–212.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996: Time, culture and identity, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996: A précis of Time, culture and identity, Archaeological dialogues 3.1, 6–21.Google Scholar
Vogel, L., 1994: The fragile ‘We’. Ethical implications of Heidegger's ‘Being and time’, Evanston.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M.E., 1993: Heidegger, Buddhism and deep ecology, in Guignon, C. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Heidegger, Cambridge, 240–69.Google Scholar