In the LARB, Charles Clavey reviews Matthew B. Crawford's The World Beyond Your Head : On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction
These philosophers deserve more than the cursory treatment they receive or total neglect they suffer in The World Beyond Your Head. The same goes for the theories of labor as socially necessary and morally valuable propounded by Simone Weil, Hannah Arendt, and Alasdair MacIntyre. Instead, Crawford, it seems, subscribes to a narrowly circumscribed philosophical canon.
Certainly the most striking omission from this canon is Martin Heidegger. Crawford’s belief that we encounter our world as laden with pre-given meanings and significances, his claim that we act in the world through the pragmatic use of skill in the pursuit of projects, and, above all, his argument that true individuality consists in both the rejection of the dominant opinion of an anonymous public and the authentic embrace of tradition — in short, the entire scope of the book’s argument — relies heavily on the recondite philosophical anthropology the young Heidegger developed in Being and Time. Moreover, Crawford’s dim evaluation of the dominant philosophy of the subject — as a sovereign self at once isolated from the world yet imperiously demanding authority over it —resonates deeply with the later Heidegger’s trenchant critique of Western metaphysical thought and its concomitant humanistic worldview. Modern technology, Heidegger argued, encapsulated this view of man as an all-powerful subjectum, a tyrant who orders, manipulates, and controls the things of the world. Heidegger urged a clearer thinking that would abandon this position in favor of a humble view of man — of human being — as subordinate to the larger sway of Being. Though couched in a poetic idiom foreign to The World Beyond Your Head, this must, I believe, be the inspiration for Crawford’s complaint about the autonomous Kantian subject and advocacy for an embedded human condition.
But Heidegger’s thinking, an occluded polestar for Crawford’s arguments, does not point toward Kant. True, Heidegger took Kant to be a powerful interlocutor. But Heidegger’s thought points in this instance to another source: to the ancient Greeks and, in particular, to Aristotle.
Oz The Saturday Paper reviews
Julia Holter's Have You In My Wilderness
She said, “All the people run from the horizon”
This is, I believe, a reference to the horizons of temporality and consciousness spoken about by Heidegger in Sein und Zeit. It is non-being, or death, that lies beyond the horizon. Eric Gerlach explains Heidegger’s concept this way: “One cannot run from the horizon, as it always remains with us.” This isn’t exactly standard-issue pop material.
Still waiting for the vinyl to arrive. Her song about the sculptures in Marienbad is a favorite 'round here.
This is not “Hegel for Dummies”, nor does this new translation make Heidegger’s interpretations of Hegel easier to comprehend. In fact, in their introduction, the translators themselves concede that much of Heidegger’s original text is “fragmentary and much less polished than many of his other works.” In places the introduction even reads like the translators’ apology for the incomprehensibility of much of the book, perhaps wishing to absolve themselves of responsibility for the readability of the text.
Some of the lesser Gesamtausgabe volumes have this, it's a list of jottings not a book, problem. If you are interested in Hegel read Hegel, or the secondary lit. Heidegger's only interested in teasing his understanding out of Hegel.
Pieces of the text will literally be Greek to readers, as the text uses not foreign words but characters from foreign alphabets, as well. The Latin, Greek, and German to English translations are as epic in scope as a Gutenberg bible reading.
At this point (first translation), specialists want to get as close to what Heidegger wrote, as possible. Later, the consensus interpretations will present themselves.