biermann strebel: Heidegger 2

Protocol: Thursday, 24 May

Author: Jess

I. “Western-European philosophy” as a tautology ([paragraph] 11)

Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc. are not considered as philosophy because they are [from] a different tradition
Point: Heidegger wishes to distill philosophy to allow to really see its actual “spirit”

II. Presupposition in philosophy: discrediting certain possible paths

Problem about trying to understand philosophy in terms of reason/ as a matter of reason

It is somehow reason using/defending itself for justification.
It is necessary to understand that defining entails abstraction in that in order to come up with a definition it is necessary to abstract. The definition formulated from abstraction is used as a basis.

Example: When studying the liver, it becomes something conceptual wherein the liver is deemed as the liver of everybody. The common qualities of the liver are abstracted in order to use it as a basis of a particular definition in that the object has to pass the list of qualities in the definition.

This understanding of philosophy already disregards a lot of possible inquiries.

It is impossible go into certain human enterprises, particularly art, since art is looked at not by rationalizing it, but by experiencing/ feeling it.

Point: If philosophy is about reason/ a matter of reason, then it can be considered as one of the many diverse branches of science, which will lead us nowhere in understanding philosophy.

III. Heidegger’s critique of modernity (a critique of technology)

Modern humanity has lost the sense/ perspective of viewing the world the way the ancient Greeks/primordial people possessed because of technology

Modern humanity has lost a primordial connection with the world in that it no longer sees the world as it is. Modern people deem themselves as separate from the world because of the advancement in technology.

Example: Now, a tree is seen in the way of its scientific qualities (chlorophyll, photosynthesis, etc.) in that it is understood based on how it fits into certain definitions or categories.

If reading a poem like Trees by Joyce Kilmer and somehow go through the poem line by line, then perhaps we can experience the tree the same way the poem experiences it in that this experience is different form the preconceived notions of science.
This sense of the poetic has been replaced with the sense of utility.

Rain: (then) experienced as a blessing, as a necessity for survival to grow crops, but (now) deemed as inconvenience

Juxtapose: usual way of thinking of urbanized people and indigenous people towards nature

Mother Nature is a dead metaphor or doesn’t mean anything to us anymore in that this view of seeing nature came from that which no longer holds true in modern society. In modern society, nature is no longer a mother but more of a pumping station/ a resource.

Not only separates us from a primordial connection with nature and the world, but also separates us from one another.

Typewriter: there is certain artificiality with it in that the personality of the person typing the letter is lost in the sense that one’s personality can be seen in the strokes of the handwriting.
The pen follows the rhythm of the hand, but in typing the fingers become tools, forced to follow the configuration of the machine.

IV. Relevance of the critique to “What is philosophy”

When we talk about “ti estin” and “quid” and “what is,” there’s a big difference since “what is” comes from a technical point of view and “quid” expresses as if that something could be captured by way of definition, while “ti estin” does not mold that something into a category or definition, instead it merely provides the avenue for that something to reveal itself and it does not dictate its unconcealment.

The analogy of the gardener and the builder: Gardener as “ti estin”, Builder as “quid”/ “what is”

When one defines, he/she is a builder. Categories are established in order to try to fit nature within a box. Example: The categories in [bureaucratic] forms, such as gender, try to fit a certain person in the categories present in the forms.
The gardener does not dictate the growth of the plant, but merely provides the space for it to flourish on its own capacity.

Point: Heidegger knew that modern readers would look at philosophy in the matter of the “quid” wherein we try to classify and categorize everything/ want to see/ grasp everything as “quantifiable” in that categories are created to try to fill or represent the spaces present in our understanding of things. Thus, turning back to the primordial way of seeing things/ perspective is needed to understand the question at hand. (What is philosophy?)

V. Heraclitus and Parmenides as “Great thinkers” ([thinker:] Denker)/ ([poet:] Dichter)

They don’t seem to prove any particular point in their writing (there is this sense that they are not exactly doing philosophy) because they are still in harmony with Logos/ one with everything.
φιλοσοφία (philosophia)=> φιλόσοφος (philosohos)=> ανερ φιλόσοφος (aner philosophos) => (hos philei to sophon): he who loves the sophon ([paragraph] 22): tries to establish the fact that indeed Heraclitus and Paraminides are “great thinkers” because they were one with the Logos in that they inhabit that sophon ([paragraph] 26).

Sophon= Hen Panta: “all is one”
Individualism is very important to modern humanity; however, primordial people see themselves not as a ‘self’ but in unity other people in a community
Indigenous people has no distinction of what is man-made and natural, just see everything as one, as part of the cosmos/ of an order
Example: dike: means the whole cosmos is ordered; however, the modern mind limits it to inter-human affairs by labeling it as “justice.”

Point: Heraclitus and Parmenides both inhabit that unity with the sophon; however, modern society no longer lives in that unity because of individualism/ definition/ separation from Hen Panta. This is why contemporaries have a hard time understanding Heraclitus and Parmenides.

biermann strebel