The World-Relatedness of Affectivity: Heidegger and Richir

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
D. Ekweariri
{"title":"The World-Relatedness of Affectivity: Heidegger and Richir","authors":"D. Ekweariri","doi":"10.24193/subbphil.2021.2s.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\" My investigation reveals that Heidegger’s account of affectivity – though his programmatical determination included an ontical dimension or otherwise lived, personal experiences – is overshadowed by a dense ontology that cannot enable real phenomenal experience. This is why he could not account for other affective states such as emotions, feel-ings and the role of the body in affectivity. Besides, in that account we are lost when we seek to answer the question of whether moods are “one” or “many”. My aim is to point out how these deficiencies in Heidegger’s account of mood could be overcome in Richir’s account of affectivity, where indeterminate background feelings (affections) could give rise to a deter-minate and occurent emotion (affects). The advantage of this move is a rich ontic account of affectivity where not only the body but also sense/meaning of affective episodes play a robust role in an encounter of world events. If Richir reproached Heidegger for existential solipsism, one could now reproach the former for existentiell/phenomenal solipsism. In the end I suggest that these two core but opposite aspects of affectivity (the ontological and the ontic) belong to the same reality: Dasein is not just in the world (ontology), but also the world is in Dasein (ontic/phenomenological).\nKeywords: mood, affection, affect, Heidegger’s ontology, Richir’s Leib and sense.\n\n\"","PeriodicalId":40516,"journal":{"name":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philosophia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philosophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2021.2s.04","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: 2

Abstract

" My investigation reveals that Heidegger’s account of affectivity – though his programmatical determination included an ontical dimension or otherwise lived, personal experiences – is overshadowed by a dense ontology that cannot enable real phenomenal experience. This is why he could not account for other affective states such as emotions, feel-ings and the role of the body in affectivity. Besides, in that account we are lost when we seek to answer the question of whether moods are “one” or “many”. My aim is to point out how these deficiencies in Heidegger’s account of mood could be overcome in Richir’s account of affectivity, where indeterminate background feelings (affections) could give rise to a deter-minate and occurent emotion (affects). The advantage of this move is a rich ontic account of affectivity where not only the body but also sense/meaning of affective episodes play a robust role in an encounter of world events. If Richir reproached Heidegger for existential solipsism, one could now reproach the former for existentiell/phenomenal solipsism. In the end I suggest that these two core but opposite aspects of affectivity (the ontological and the ontic) belong to the same reality: Dasein is not just in the world (ontology), but also the world is in Dasein (ontic/phenomenological). Keywords: mood, affection, affect, Heidegger’s ontology, Richir’s Leib and sense. "
情感的世界关联性:海德格尔与Richir
“我的调查表明,海德格尔对情感的描述——尽管他的程序化的决定包括了一个现实的维度或其他生活的、个人的经验——被一个稠密的本体论所掩盖,它不能使真实的现象性经验成为可能。这就是为什么他不能解释其他情感状态,如情绪、感觉和身体在情感中的作用。此外,在这种情况下,当我们试图回答情绪是“一”还是“多”的问题时,我们就迷失了方向。我的目的是指出,海德格尔关于情绪的描述中的这些缺陷是如何在里希尔关于情感的描述中被克服的,在里希尔的描述中,不确定的背景感受(情感)可以产生一种确定的和发生的情感(情感)。这一举动的优点是对情感的丰富的本体描述,不仅身体,而且情感情节的感觉/意义在世界事件的遭遇中发挥着强大的作用。如果Richir因为存在唯我主义而责备海德格尔,那么现在人们可以因为存在/现象唯我主义而责备前者。最后,我认为情感的这两个核心但相反的方面(本体论和本体论)属于同一个现实:此在不仅在世界(本体论)中,而且世界也在此在(本体论/现象学)中。关键词:情绪、情感、情感、海德格尔本体论、里希尔的Leib和感觉。
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
20
×
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