Content uploaded by Thomas Sheehan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Sheehan on Nov 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Becoming Heidegger: On the Trail of His Early Occasional Writings, 1910-1927
Abstract
In the decades since Martin Heidegger's death, many of his early writings--notes and talks, essays and reviews--have made it into print, but in such scattershot fashion and erratic translation as to mitigate their usefulness for understanding the development, direction, and ultimate shape of his work. This timely collection, edited by two preeminent Heidegger scholars, brings together in English translation the most philosophical of Heidegger's earliest occasional writings from 1910 to the end of 1927. These important philosophical documents fill out the context in which the early Heidegger wrote his major works and provide the background against which they appeared. Accompanied by incisive commentary, these pieces from Heidegger's student days, his early Freiburg period, and the time of his Marburg lecture courses will contribute substantially to rethinking the making and meaning of Being and Time. The contents are of a depth and quality that make this volume the collection for those interested in Heidegger's work prior to his masterwork. The book will also serve those concerned with Heidegger's relation to such figures as Aristotle, Dilthey, Husserl, Jaspers, and Löwith, as well as scholars whose interests are more topically centered on questions of history, logic, religion, and truth. Important in their own right, these pieces will also prove particularly useful to students of Heidegger's thought and of twentieth-century philosophy in general.
... These patterns and strategies are not related to the duration of the illness, and personcentred care is needed to meet the different and changing needs of learning (Kneck et al. 2014 ). This notion is supported by several studies (Berglund 2011Berglund , 2014, Berglund & K€ allerwald 2012) applying life-world theory (Husserl 1999, Heidegger et al. 2007, Merleau-Ponty 2012) as a basis for studying the learning process that is inherent in living with a long-term illness. Berglund's (2014) research on how patients learn to live with long-term illness and how this learning can be supported shows that information and education often remain superficial, meaning that patients are expected to do as instructed. ...
... The model calls for challenging patients' understanding , actions and goals such that they are able to take charge of their own life situation. The theoretical philosophical foundation for the model is the life-world theory (Husserl 1999, Heidegger et al. 2007, Merleau-Ponty 2012), where the patient is considered as a whole person with physical, mental and existential dimensions and where the person's experiences and reflections of these is the basis of learning. Implementing this model in nursing healthcare faces many obstacles, such as organisational climate, insufficient education, limited time for research activities and lack of support and engagement from leaders. ...
Aims and objectives:
The aim of this implementation study is to describe nurses' experiences of supporting patient learning using the model called 'The challenge to take charge of life with long-term illness'.
Background:
Supporting patient learning for those suffering from a long-term illness is a complex art in nursing. Genuine learning occurs at a deep and existential level. If the patient's resistance to illness can be challenged and reflected upon, the patient may take charge of his/her life.
Design:
The project lasted for 2 years and was initiated by a former patient on an assisted haemodialysis ward and involved 14 registered nurses. The project began with a session to review patients' learning and the didactic model. Monthly reflective meetings and group supervisions were held that focused on the nurses' experiences of supporting patient learning. Notes were written during these reflective meetings and group sessions.
Methods:
Data collected from interviews, notes and written stories were subjected to phenomenological analysis.
Results:
Three aspects of nurses' experiences of the learning support approach were assessed: To have the courage to listen sincerely, a movement from providing information to supporting learning, and to let the patient indicate the direction. The approach resulted in an increased focus on genuine dialogue and the courage to encourage patients to take charge of their health process.
Conclusions:
The changes in nurses' approach to learning support reveal that they shift from providing information on the disease, illness and treatment to strengthening and supporting the patient in making decisions and taking responsibility. For nurses, the change entails accepting the patient's goals and regarding their own role as supportive rather than controlling. The didactic model and involved supervision contributed to the change in the nurses' approach.
Relevance to clinical practice:
The didactic model might be useful in caring for persons with long-term illness, making the care more person-centred and enhancing the patient's self-care ability.
Published in NotaBene, 60, 2023: http://notabene-bg.org/read.php?id=1428 In times of global boundary situations we look backward towards our predecessors and traditions. Politics and political philosophy today are subjected to a multitude of perturbations, which involve basic notions, such as freedom and democracy. In this vein, Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, the two fathers of German existentialism, have a peculiar relation to the history of political philosophy. Both thinkers tried to adjust their philosophies to the ever-changing realities. After a relatively long friendship, a breach occurred in their communication and interrelation, which is suspected to have been caused by the difference in their opinions not so
much on philosophy, but on politics. Heidegger gave up any involvement with politics, after his involvement with Nazism, whereas after the Second World War Jaspers tried to put in order the political thought of the present-day, in which endeavor he succeeded partially, but his ideas were never practically implemented. Thus, the potential possibility for cooperation between Heidegger and Jaspers for an eventual common politico-philosophical project was never realized. In the first part of my inquiry, I exposed the history of the friendship of the two thinkers and their
academic interrelation, as well as the involvement of both of them in the political thought and the politics of the day. In this second part, I will present the rest of my historico-philosophical analysis by focusing on the interpretations of both Germans on the philosophy of their opponent, which did challenge both not for good, but for bad. At the end, I will present a general conclusion on the encounter Heidegger-Jaspers, which had begun with inspiration for high hopes and big successes, but in reality ended with the silence of Heidegger and Jaspers’ attempts for communication renewal and understanding even through pathobiographical analysis.
“The Origin,” one of Martin Heidegger’s most important notions after 1934, is tightly related to being-historical thinking, and to the peculiar kind of divinity that being-historical thinking indicates. However, the notion of the Origin appears already in Heidegger’s early Freiburg lectures (given between 1919 and 1923), thus placing it among the fundamentals of his early thought. This article argues that Heidegger’s project of fundamental ontology emerges from that early notion of the Origin, preparing the way for its flourishing in his later thinking. Attending to Heidegger’s early notion of the Origin, I suggest, reveals a unique feature of Heidegger’s thinking; namely, an element of genuine religiosity ungraspable in terms of both philosophy and theology. Thus, rather than interpreting fundamental ontology as a transcendental project encompassing a de-theologized version of early Christianity, it should be taken as an attempt to think the truth of the Origin, thus preparing the way for the genuine religiosity of Heidegger’s later thought. In this light, a unique sense of divinity underlies Heidegger’s lectures between 1919 and 1925; a sense which can only be comprehended through Heidegger’s triple sense schema (enactment–relation–content).
In strategy as practice the basic question, what is strategy-making? is of increasing significance. Moreover, what makes the practice of strategy-making-which subsumes the notions of strategizing and strategy work-distinctively strategic is a central aspect of this questioning. This paper seeks the meaning of specifically managerial strategy-making by posing a different question, the study of which contributes to understanding strategy-making, more generally, as a distinctive practice. From an early-Heideggerian perspective, the prevailing question form, what is managerial strategy-making? is re-cast as, what is the toward-which of managerial strategy-making? Managers are held to account and must justify what they do and say, yet, they must do so under ineradicable contingency. The tensional relation, between the imperative of managerial justification and the condition of contingency, is the teleoaffective structure in which managerial strategy-making shows up as a crucial coping practice. The more or less distal, purposive concern for organizational effectiveness may affect all managerial strategy-making. However, it is the teleoaffective demand of contingent justification that effects managerial strategy-making and conditions it as the sociomaterial practice of contingent justification-its proximal, fundamental toward-which. This is illustrated in an interpretative study of a variety of strategy texts of the South African Post Office that were presented to a Parliamentary oversight committee. The metaphor of the alibi helps to describe the practice of contingent justification as the accomplishment of a dynamic intertext that always encompasses the discursive resources for explaining both success and failure, both prospectively and retrospectively. The interpretation of contingent justification reveals a new practice-based, discursive notion of managerial control.
This paper aims to compare and contrast Barth and Heidegger on the question of time. Although Barth speaks from the theological standpoint and Heidegger considers theology as a form of an "ontic science" distinct from his fundamental ontology in Being and Time, I pose the following question: To what extent can an appropriation of Barth, ironically, transcend the limits of Heidegger’s Being and Time, which could not offer its missing division III? We hypothesize that this step beyond Being and Time can help frame a research agenda to frame – ontologically – the problem of the very of Being of God’s time. And this agenda would go beyond the limits of Barthian theology on the one hand and Heidegger’s first two divisions of Being and Time on the other.
On the morning of 26 March 1929, Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) met for a two-hour public debate at the Hotel Belvedere in Davos, Switzerland. The week before they had, as part of a three-week long international and interdisciplinary rendezvous known as the Davos Hochschulkurs, each given three individual lectures on the interpretation of Kant’s philosophy, and now they were to discuss their differing views (cf. Heidegger, 1997, pp. 191–207). Cassirer was one of the leading intellectuals in Germany at the time, and Heidegger had become a philosophical celebrity after the publication in 1927 of Time and Being (Sein und Zeit). However, the event did not go down in history because of the actual content of the philosophical debate. Instead, the event at Davos came to be seen, symbolically, as one of the decisive moments in European intellectual history, a ‘final moment of rupture’, as Peter E. Gordon puts it, ‘between humanism and anti-humanism, Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment, or rationalism and irrationalism — as if this single event brought into focus the defining struggles of twentieth-century thought and politics’.1 Cassirer, the German-Jewish Neo-Kantian philosopher, represented a cultivated Enlightenment position, while Heidegger, the new and radical philosopher, wanted to challenge and oppose Neo-Kantianism and the ‘old’ thinking, that is, the attempt to create a synthesis between science and universal values.
Abstract Although the concept of “groundedness/autochthony” (Bodenständigkeit) in Heidegger’s writings receives far less scholarly attention than, for example, that of “releasement” (Gelassenheit), a careful examination of the famous “Gelassenheit” speech of 1955 demonstrates that, in fact, Bodenständigkeit is the core concept around which everything else turns. Moreover, in the “Gelassenheit” speech and the writings on Hebel that follow, Heidegger understands Bodenständigkeit to be, fundamentally, something made possible by language in its particularities of tradition and locale. Thus, there is an intriguing continuity of meaning between that concept and the concept as it was used phenomenologically in his writings from the summer 1924 course up to Sein und Zeit.
Guilt is one of the most poignant and devastating senses, which is either perceived or imposed upon for one reason or the other. This perceived or imposed sense keeps on growing as a poisonous tumor, which ultimately turns into a terminal mental disease, a disease that disowns one from his own self and identity. This sense of loss of identity creates a murky dungeon of non-belonging, where one loses his sense of direction in life. This study is an attempt to shed light on the nature of guilt in Miller's All my Sons, by scrutinizing the different situations of the characters who helplessly try to get away from this oozy bog of guilt stricken world.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.