More than a Feeling: Affect as Radical Situatedness

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY
J. Slaby
{"title":"More than a Feeling: Affect as Radical Situatedness","authors":"J. Slaby","doi":"10.1111/MISP.12076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Martin Heidegger’s perspective stands out among the many proposals for understanding affect in the phenomenological tradition. One reason for this is that Heidegger is the most thorough antiCartesian among the phenomenologists. He rigorously disbands affectivity from notions of psychological interiority, inner states, or other individualist allegiances, construing affect instead as a form of being open to the world in a radical sense. Another reason is that Heidegger places affect in the thick of everyday social and interpersonal commerce—within the warp and weft of all our days. With this orientation, he manages to combine a sense for ordinary comportment and experience—a phenomenological and cultural analysis of the everyday—with a profound sense for the ontological depths of human existence. Rarely have the mundane and the metaphysical been so thoroughly coarticulated; and yet Heidegger works from an acute sense of the massive discordance between these two distinct but interwoven layers of existence. Despite this promising outlook, there is much one should take issue with in Heidegger’s work, above all and most strikingly his dubious politics. My way of dealing with this problematic is not the usual one of trying to identify fascistic or protofascistic tendencies in Heidegger’s philosophy (I made a start at that elsewhere, see Slaby forthcoming). Rather, in the final section of this article, I will indicate how the perspective on affect and historicity developed here might help us turn Heidegger’s insights against his own putative political orientation. I will mainly focus on two aspects of Heidegger’s view, as these might help orient critical work on affect in philosophy and the humanities today.","PeriodicalId":39586,"journal":{"name":"Midwest Studies in Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/MISP.12076","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwest Studies in Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/MISP.12076","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: 30

Abstract

Martin Heidegger’s perspective stands out among the many proposals for understanding affect in the phenomenological tradition. One reason for this is that Heidegger is the most thorough antiCartesian among the phenomenologists. He rigorously disbands affectivity from notions of psychological interiority, inner states, or other individualist allegiances, construing affect instead as a form of being open to the world in a radical sense. Another reason is that Heidegger places affect in the thick of everyday social and interpersonal commerce—within the warp and weft of all our days. With this orientation, he manages to combine a sense for ordinary comportment and experience—a phenomenological and cultural analysis of the everyday—with a profound sense for the ontological depths of human existence. Rarely have the mundane and the metaphysical been so thoroughly coarticulated; and yet Heidegger works from an acute sense of the massive discordance between these two distinct but interwoven layers of existence. Despite this promising outlook, there is much one should take issue with in Heidegger’s work, above all and most strikingly his dubious politics. My way of dealing with this problematic is not the usual one of trying to identify fascistic or protofascistic tendencies in Heidegger’s philosophy (I made a start at that elsewhere, see Slaby forthcoming). Rather, in the final section of this article, I will indicate how the perspective on affect and historicity developed here might help us turn Heidegger’s insights against his own putative political orientation. I will mainly focus on two aspects of Heidegger’s view, as these might help orient critical work on affect in philosophy and the humanities today.
不仅仅是一种感觉:作为激进情境的影响
在现象学传统中关于理解情感的诸多建议中,马丁·海德格尔的观点显得尤为突出。其中一个原因是,海德格尔是现象学家中最彻底的反笛卡尔主义者。他严格地将情感从心理内在性、内心状态或其他个人主义忠诚的概念中分离出来,将情感解释为一种在激进意义上对世界开放的形式。另一个原因是,海德格尔将情感置于日常社会和人际商业的深处——置于我们所有日子的经纬之中。有了这个方向,他设法将对日常行为和体验的感觉——对日常生活的现象学和文化分析——与对人类存在的本体论深度的深刻感觉结合起来。世俗和形而上学很少如此彻底地结合在一起;然而,海德格尔的作品是从一种敏锐的感觉出发的,即这两个截然不同但交织在一起的存在层之间的巨大不和谐。尽管有这种充满希望的前景,但在海德格尔的作品中有很多值得商榷的地方,尤其是他可疑的政治。我处理这个问题的方式并不是试图在海德格尔的哲学中识别法西斯主义或原法西斯主义倾向(我在其他地方开始了这一点,见Slaby即将出版)。相反,在本文的最后一节,我将指出,在这里发展起来的关于情感和历史性的观点如何帮助我们将海德格尔的见解与他自己假定的政治取向对立起来。我将主要关注海德格尔观点的两个方面,因为这可能有助于指导今天哲学和人文学科中关于情感的批判工作。
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
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
Midwest Studies in Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Midwest Studies in Philosophy presents important thinking on a single topic in philosophy with each volume. Influential contributors bring provocative and varying ideas to the theme at hand. Recent volumes of Midwest Studies in Philosophy include Truth and its Deformities, Philosophy and the Empirical, Shared Intentions and Collective Responsibility, and Free Will and Moral Responsibility.
×
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