{"title":"One’s Own and Foreign in Context of Later Heidegger’s Philosophy","authors":"A. Pigalev","doi":"10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-2-406-420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the paper is to analyze the interrelations between the notions of one’s own and the foreign in later Heidegger’s philosophy. It is pointed out that later Heidegger contextualized the notion of the world by the notion of home and its derivatives “homelessness” and “homecoming” that are of great value in his philosophy. The scrutiny proceeds from the study of the peculiarities of Heidegger’s approach to the problem of being that is considered to be the knot of his philosophy. It is noted that Heidegger, having deserted the traditional ontology already in his early works, continued, nevertheless, using its terms including “being” for a long time and thereby in a way obscured the peculiarities of his approach. Only later Heidegger tried to reject the traditional concept of being as infinitely continuing state in favor of the concept of Ereignis that is usually translated as “appropriating event” or “event of appropriation”. Thus, according to Heidegger, being gives us beings as a whole by appropriating sense to them and thereby turning them into the familiar and accessible environment for dwelling. Just the “givenness” of beings as a whole makes them familiar, one’s own. Accordingly, the “dwelling” means for Heidegger not only the security, but also the intelligibility of the environment, whereas the homelessness means the latter’s uncanny incomprehensibility. It is emphasized that Heidegger’s interpretation of homelessness is closely connected with a standard theoretical model explaining the emergence of the private and public realms. According to this model, just the extension of family as the initial one’s own resulted in the turning of household into city-state that, having been specified by the image of one super-family, added the elements of the foreign to the initial state of society.","PeriodicalId":32651,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-2-406-420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to analyze the interrelations between the notions of one’s own and the foreign in later Heidegger’s philosophy. It is pointed out that later Heidegger contextualized the notion of the world by the notion of home and its derivatives “homelessness” and “homecoming” that are of great value in his philosophy. The scrutiny proceeds from the study of the peculiarities of Heidegger’s approach to the problem of being that is considered to be the knot of his philosophy. It is noted that Heidegger, having deserted the traditional ontology already in his early works, continued, nevertheless, using its terms including “being” for a long time and thereby in a way obscured the peculiarities of his approach. Only later Heidegger tried to reject the traditional concept of being as infinitely continuing state in favor of the concept of Ereignis that is usually translated as “appropriating event” or “event of appropriation”. Thus, according to Heidegger, being gives us beings as a whole by appropriating sense to them and thereby turning them into the familiar and accessible environment for dwelling. Just the “givenness” of beings as a whole makes them familiar, one’s own. Accordingly, the “dwelling” means for Heidegger not only the security, but also the intelligibility of the environment, whereas the homelessness means the latter’s uncanny incomprehensibility. It is emphasized that Heidegger’s interpretation of homelessness is closely connected with a standard theoretical model explaining the emergence of the private and public realms. According to this model, just the extension of family as the initial one’s own resulted in the turning of household into city-state that, having been specified by the image of one super-family, added the elements of the foreign to the initial state of society.
本文的目的是分析海德格尔后期哲学中自己的概念与外国的概念之间的相互关系。有人指出,后来的海德格尔通过家的概念及其衍生物“无家可归”和“回家”将世界的概念置于语境中,这在他的哲学中具有重要价值。本文从研究海德格尔对存在问题的方法的特殊性出发,这被认为是他的哲学的核心。值得注意的是,海德格尔在其早期作品中已经抛弃了传统的本体论,但在很长一段时间内继续使用包括“存在”在内的术语,从而在某种程度上掩盖了其方法的独特性。直到后来,海德格尔才试图拒绝作为无限持续状态的存在的传统概念,而支持通常被翻译为“挪用事件”或“挪用事件(event of application)”的Ereignis概念。因此,根据海德格尔的观点,存在赋予我们作为一个整体的存在,赋予它们意义,从而将它们变成熟悉和可接近的居住环境。仅仅是存在作为一个整体的“给予性”就让它们变得熟悉,一个人自己的。因此,对海德格尔来说,“居住”不仅意味着环境的安全性,而且意味着对环境的可理解性,而无家可归则意味着后者不可思议的不可理解性。有人强调,海德格尔对无家可归的解释与解释私人和公共领域出现的标准理论模型密切相关。根据这一模式,正是家庭作为最初自己的家庭的延伸,导致了家庭转变为城市国家,城市国家由一个超级家庭的形象所指定,在社会的初始状态中加入了外来元素。