Thursday, November 14, 2013

An und für sich on OOO’s misreading of Heidegger.
Heidegger’s “individuation” of Dasein through its authentic comportment of anticipatory resoluteness isn’t a “withdrawal” of Dasein into some inner kernel of Being. Anxiety, for instance, does not reveal to us the unmediated self, but reveals precisely the structure of “Being-in-the-world,” shorn of all concrete content.
Michael Eldred offers a position on his blog most recently that the common psychological perspective, relying as it does on the mind-body dualism, is unable to approach such crucial attributes as mood. While he does not mention Heidegger as such, the significance of befindlichkiet in S&Z is clear.

I must confess, however, that Eldred leaves his comment auf Deutsch, and my language struggles to translate it correctly.
To be fair there is not a OOO. There is a fair diversity of thought in how they take up Latour and re-appropriate Heidegger. I do think many tend to read Heidegger in terms of what Thomas Sheehan calls the "ultra-orthodox interpretation" which of course sometimes degrades into a kind of word mysticism. Given that one can hardly be surprised they react.
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version