enowning
Monday, July 04, 2016
 
3.A.M. interviews Tina Fernandes Botts about diversity.
I think hermeneutic ontology is the best way forward because, unlike metaphysics and science, hermeneutic ontology is not wedded to any particular set of first principles or procedures or other arbitrary frameworks of meaning. Instead, it acknowledges the (for me, obvious) connections between reality, meaning, and the human role in creating both. For Heidegger, schemas of reality (or ‘worlds’) are created through human interaction with the world, and with each other. His key point in Being and Time is that to “understand” anything is to interpret it, to place it in context, a context that is deeply influenced by the schemas of reality in which the interpreter dwells. Authentic understanding, to the extent it exists, is improved by a proactive acknowledgment of this fact, rather than attempting to pass off one’s value-laden attempts at so-called “understanding” as attempts at objective knowledge.
 
Comments:
"For Heidegger, schemas of reality (or ‘worlds’) are created through human interaction with the world, and with each other."
This seems to be a crass misunderstanding of Heidegger's thinking, turning it into a kind of intersubjectivity theory in which the world is 'socially constructed' (cf. Butler).
Hermeneutic casts of being are not made by human beings (subjects), but are received as messages by those who listen and think very, very carefully -- something Tina Fernandes Botts is not up to.
Modern subjects, especially those of the U.S. variety, seem not to be able to bear the thought that they do not underlie the world.
 
Bodenlosigkeit underlies the abyssal carousel of the world.

 
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

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

View mobile version