Heidegger’s thanatology

Milan Brdar
{"title":"Heidegger’s thanatology","authors":"Milan Brdar","doi":"10.2298/theo1904099b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article was writen to eleborate three teses: First, we have paradox that\n Heidegger obtained the instant glory with publishing of Being and Time\n (1927): But in due time it was impossible to understand this book as for its\n main tenets. It remained untransparent if intepreteur is not ackowledged\n with Heideggers papers writen from 1922. until 1929. Second thesis: full\n understanding of Heidegger?s work in any of its parts asks for the look from\n witihin the whole of its opus beforhand. Closely conected with it one must\n have in mind Heidegger?s famous turn (Wendung) and its consequences for his\n pihosophy of the second phase. Third: important issue of Heideggers work as\n a trial for all Heidegger-interpretation is the sense of authenticity in\n vast number of interpretation. It is a real philosophocal scandal, first,\n for we have failed insurching for interpretation of sense oh human existance\n than not lose a connection with Heideggers main theme: surching for the\n sense of Being; second, we did not find the interpretation founded in\n positive valuation of being towards death as ?most authentic? form for\n Dasein. Closely related to this there is not article that demonstrates sense\n and significance of relation to death for realization of program of sense of\n being. Therefore, in the face of such a scandalous condition in the realim\n of Heidegger intgerpretation, author elaborates the sense of ?the relation\n toward death? on two ways: first, within the Beong of Time, and second, in\n the wider context from 1922. until 1929. Formula tha is ?most authentic? for\n everyday man litteraly could be not understandble within Being and Time, as\n relevent on the meta-level of philosophical surching for the sense of being.\n Its understanding become attainable by the aid of the lecture ?What is\n Metaphysics? (1929). Also, full understanding in its methodological meaning\n unfolds not on the level of everydayness but on the meta-level of\n philosophy, and asks for full understanding of the reasons for the turn\n (Wendung) as a prior and necessary condition that its starting point have\n had in the very same lecture. At the end of the article author point out\n that the ultimate aim of whole Heideggers work on the deconstruction of\n nto-theological tradition of metaphysics to attain truthfull authenticity\n through the juncture the man and Being in the Event (Ereignis).","PeriodicalId":374875,"journal":{"name":"Theoria, Beograd","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoria, Beograd","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo1904099b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article was writen to eleborate three teses: First, we have paradox that Heidegger obtained the instant glory with publishing of Being and Time (1927): But in due time it was impossible to understand this book as for its main tenets. It remained untransparent if intepreteur is not ackowledged with Heideggers papers writen from 1922. until 1929. Second thesis: full understanding of Heidegger?s work in any of its parts asks for the look from witihin the whole of its opus beforhand. Closely conected with it one must have in mind Heidegger?s famous turn (Wendung) and its consequences for his pihosophy of the second phase. Third: important issue of Heideggers work as a trial for all Heidegger-interpretation is the sense of authenticity in vast number of interpretation. It is a real philosophocal scandal, first, for we have failed insurching for interpretation of sense oh human existance than not lose a connection with Heideggers main theme: surching for the sense of Being; second, we did not find the interpretation founded in positive valuation of being towards death as ?most authentic? form for Dasein. Closely related to this there is not article that demonstrates sense and significance of relation to death for realization of program of sense of being. Therefore, in the face of such a scandalous condition in the realim of Heidegger intgerpretation, author elaborates the sense of ?the relation toward death? on two ways: first, within the Beong of Time, and second, in the wider context from 1922. until 1929. Formula tha is ?most authentic? for everyday man litteraly could be not understandble within Being and Time, as relevent on the meta-level of philosophical surching for the sense of being. Its understanding become attainable by the aid of the lecture ?What is Metaphysics? (1929). Also, full understanding in its methodological meaning unfolds not on the level of everydayness but on the meta-level of philosophy, and asks for full understanding of the reasons for the turn (Wendung) as a prior and necessary condition that its starting point have had in the very same lecture. At the end of the article author point out that the ultimate aim of whole Heideggers work on the deconstruction of nto-theological tradition of metaphysics to attain truthfull authenticity through the juncture the man and Being in the Event (Ereignis).
这篇文章是为了阐述三个论点:第一,我们有一个悖论,即海德格尔因出版《存在与时间》(1927)而获得了瞬间的荣耀,但在适当的时候,我们不可能理解这本书的主要原则。它仍然是不透明的,如果解释不承认海德格尔从1922年写的论文。直到1929年。论文二:对海德格尔的充分理解?任何一部作品的任何部分都要求事先对其整体作品进行审视。与之密切相关的是海德格尔?他的著名转折及其对他第二阶段哲学的影响。第三,海德格尔作品作为对所有海德格尔诠释的考验的一个重要问题是大量诠释中的真实感。首先,这是一个真正的哲学丑闻,因为我们没有成功地解释人类存在的意义,而不是失去与海德格尔主题的联系:寻找存在的意义;其次,我们没有发现建立在对死亡的积极评价基础上的解释是“最真实的”。此在的形式。与此密切相关的,还没有文章论证了与死亡的关系对于存在感程序的实现的意义和意义。因此,面对海德格尔阐释的现实中如此令人反感的状况,作者阐述了对死亡的关系感。有两种方式:第一,在时间之王的范围内,第二,在1922年的更广泛的背景下。直到1929年。最真实的公式?对于日常生活中的人来说,在存在与时间中是无法理解的,因为这与哲学层面上对存在感的追求有关。它的理解可以通过讲座来实现?什么是形而上学?(1929)。此外,对其方法论意义的充分理解不是在日常层面上展开,而是在哲学的元层面上展开,并要求充分理解作为其起点在同一讲座中所具有的先决和必要条件的转向(Wendung)的原因。在文章的最后,作者指出海德格尔对形而上学的内神学传统进行解构的最终目的是通过人与事件中的存在(Ereignis)的结合来达到真实的真实性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信