To Be or Not to Be at Home. Heidegger and Derrida reading Sophocles

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Diego D’Angelo
{"title":"To Be or Not to Be at Home. Heidegger and Derrida reading Sophocles","authors":"Diego D’Angelo","doi":"10.25138/14.3.A6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 1940s, Martin Heidegger held a series of lectures in which he interprets passages from Sophocles’ Antigone in order to understand the characterization of the human being as deinon, which Heidegger translates as unheimlich or “not at home.” This essential determination of the human being as a being which is constitutively not-at-home will be discussed in the first part of this paper. In the second part, I will discuss Jacques Derrida’s reading of another Sophoclean text, Oedipus at Colonus, in order to discuss the question of Oedipus’s foreignness. Heidegger’s and Derrida’s readings of Sophocles do have different approaches and methodologies, but considering the influence of Heidegger on Derrida’s thought, it is possible to find deep similarities, connections, and philosophically relevant divergences. This confrontation of the two readings concerning the question of being-at-home and foreignness will show that their approaches complement each other.","PeriodicalId":41978,"journal":{"name":"Kritike-An Online Journal of Philosophy","volume":"14 1","pages":"107-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kritike-An Online Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25138/14.3.A6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In the 1940s, Martin Heidegger held a series of lectures in which he interprets passages from Sophocles’ Antigone in order to understand the characterization of the human being as deinon, which Heidegger translates as unheimlich or “not at home.” This essential determination of the human being as a being which is constitutively not-at-home will be discussed in the first part of this paper. In the second part, I will discuss Jacques Derrida’s reading of another Sophoclean text, Oedipus at Colonus, in order to discuss the question of Oedipus’s foreignness. Heidegger’s and Derrida’s readings of Sophocles do have different approaches and methodologies, but considering the influence of Heidegger on Derrida’s thought, it is possible to find deep similarities, connections, and philosophically relevant divergences. This confrontation of the two readings concerning the question of being-at-home and foreignness will show that their approaches complement each other.
在家还是不在家。海德格尔与德里达解读索福克勒斯
在20世纪40年代,马丁·海德格尔举办了一系列讲座,他在讲座中解读了索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》中的段落,以理解将人描述为“不在家”,海德格尔将其翻译为“不回家”。本文的第一部分将讨论人作为一个构成性不在家的存在的本质决定。在第二部分中,我将讨论雅克·德里达对另一部索福克莱恩文本《俄狄浦斯在科隆诺斯》的解读,以探讨俄狄浦s的异国性问题。海德格尔和德里达对索福克勒斯的解读确实有不同的途径和方法,但考虑到海德格尔对德里达思想的影响,我们可以发现深刻的相似之处、联系之处和哲学上的分歧。这两种关于“在家”和“陌生”问题的解读的对抗将表明他们的方法是相辅相成的。
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
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信