Heidegger and the Aesthetics of Living
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
The publication brings together contributions by many scholars, academics and researchers on the work of the German philosopher from a variety of perspectives and approaches. Prominent thinkers from various disciplines engage in a fascinating dialogue with the work of Martin Heidegger in an attempt to explain and critically evaluate his contraversial legacy. The volume is an attempt to go beyond the polarised perceptions about the philosophy of Heidegger and present a neo-humanist reading of what can be still considered livable in it. Contributions also examine the consequences of Heideggers thinking for a wide range of modes of cultural production and aspects of philosophical enterprise. Finally the volume attempts the first post-political interpretation of his work by focusing on the texts themselves for the conceptual values they formulate and the modes of thinking they established. Contributors are: Gianni Vattimo, Jeff Malpas, Anthony Stephens , Peter Murphy, Elizabeth Grierson, Paolo Bartoloni, John Dalton, Colin Hearfield, Jane Mummery, Robert Sinnerbrink, Ashley Woodward, Peter Williams, George Vassilacopoulos and Vrasidas Karalis.
1939). Mason’s book is carried by a tone of sustained indignation, since he is writing from a Christian point of view and sees Rilke’s works as mimicking Christianity, but with a lack of religious commitment. Mason Anthony Stephens 13 was addressing a problem that was already endemic in Rilke-criticism, namely that it was easy to represent Rilke as espousing virtually any world-view current at the time – so long as one did not demand absolute consistency. Rilke is a kind of intellectual
whom “no poet of our age can overtake”. Why? “The precursor does not [...] disappear into a future, but he arrives from the future in such a manner that it is only in the arrival of his word that the future achieves presence” (Heidegger, 1950: 320). My answer to this puzzle is that Heidegger posits two different “histories of Being”, and that one of them does reverse time-sequences. For Heidegger pulls the same trick on Nietzsche in 1935, as he does on Rilke in 1946. At the conclusion of his
which are placed in no clear relationship to one another. There is the one philosophers prefer that does no violence to chronology. As Emil Angehrn sets it out in the Heidegger-Handbuch, one of a series of recent and authoritative compendia on major German authors and thinkers: In this sense metaphysics is to be regarded as a basic historical process – not as a misguided manner of thought and doctrine – and nihilism as its essential form deriving from the “fate of Being itself” [...]. What is
presents matters, Heidegger, von Uexküll, Ratzel and Vidal de la Blanche all share the same basic commitment to a conception of human being as essentially bound up with its environment or world – in Heideggerian terms, human being is being-there (Da-sein) which is beingin-the-world. Such a commitment, as I indicated a moment ago, is also one 1985). For an excellent survey of recent articles on humanistic geography see Paul Adams, Steven Hoelscher and Karen E Till (eds), Textures of Place:
strongly "Heideggerian" approach to Malick. The first is that we should be wary of reading the film solely through the lens of Malick’s biography. The second is that recognizing the "Heideggerian" aspects in the film shouldn’t blind us to other dimensions of its aesthetic and philosophical complexity. That Malick was a teacher of philosophy and translator of Heidegger need not prompt us assume that he makes "Heideggerian" films. Nor should the powerful treatment of themes such as mortality and