ABSTRACTIn this article I explore the idea that Heidegger's lectures on The Basic Problems of Phenomenology are of particular importance to our understanding of the relationship between Heidegger and Kant. These lectures can be read as a “historical” commentary on Being and Time. Of course, Heidegger does not present himself as a historian of philosophy, but acts as a philosophical reader of Kant in order to expound the principal ideas of his own philosophy. My central claim is that it is (...) through Kant's philosophy of self-consciousness that Heidegger attempts to provide us with a better understanding of his own conception of self-understanding. (shrink)

The topic to be addressed in this paper, that is, the distinction between the “concept” of time and the being of the clock, divides into two parts: first, in the debate between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, one discovers the ground for the diverging concepts of time characterized by physics in its opposing itself to philosophy. Bergson’s durée or “duration” in opposition to Einstein’s ‘physicist’s time’ as ‘public time,’ one can argue, sets the terms for Martin Heidegger’s extending, his ontological (...) analysis of Da-sein, as human being-in-the-world. Second, in this the ‘concept of time’ gives way to the analysis of the ‘being of the clock.’ What is this being of the clock that makes evident the fundamental temporality of Da-sein? This question is rehearsed in Division Two of Being and Time. My claim is that the fundamental insight into the nature of time revealed by the encounter between Bergson and Einstein is that time extemporizes itself. Temporality “is” not a being but a process that temporalizes itself, precisely because it “is not.”. (shrink)

In his book Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, Peter E. Gordon attempts to reconstruct the historical circumstances which shaped Martin Heidegger’s and Ernst Cassirer’s debate at Davos in 1929, as well as outline the key points of contention in their arguments. Gordon argues that the primary source of disagreement between Heidegger and Cassirer lies in their different concepts of what it means to be human. In this review essay, I argue that rather than a “conceptual” or “thematic” divide, the divergence (...) between them is primarily methodological, and, in Heidegger’s case, unfolds on two fronts: first, by shifting the focus of philosophy away from the modern concern for “man” in favor of the question of being, and, secondly, by pioneering a new strategy for reading the history of philosophy that emphasizes the “historical [geschichtlich]” as the recovery of the past in terms of its relevance for the future, versus providing a “historically [historisch]” accurate record of what has been. (shrink)

O presente artigo busca comparar as ontologias desenvolvidas por Heidegger e Cassirer mostrando que ambos possuem concepções distintas sobre a origem dos múltiplos sentidos do ser, as quais servirão para sustentar interpretações opostas acerca da ascensão do nacional-socialismo na Alemanha. Em Heidegger o sentido é pensado a partir de uma origem única: seja a temporalidade do Dasein, seja a epocalidade do ser no Heidegger tardio. Cassirer, por sua vez, pensa o ser como dado mediante uma multiplicidade de origens expressas nas (...) formas simbólicas da cultura. Curiosamente, ambos os filósofos se utilizarão de suas respectivas ontologias para pensar o surgimento do nacional-socialismo a partir da relação entre mito e técnica. Assim, no início dos anos de 1930, Heidegger pensar história do ser a partir da perspectiva de uma origem mito-poética, vendo o nacional-socialismo como uma possibilidade de retorno ao início grego do pensamento ocidental e da irrupção de um novo modo de doação do ser que pudesse superar o domínio planetário da técnica moderna. Cassirer, ao contrário, verá no nazismo uma infiltração indevida do elemento mítico na sociedade tecno-científica. Por fim, a comparação entre as duas ontologias mostrará, ao mesmo tempo, as limitações de cada posicionamento filosófico. Se Cassirer valoriza o pensamento técnico-científico a ponto de não conseguir ver nele um modo de dominação e ameaça ao humano, Heidegger não parece perceber os perigos que se escondem na sua mitificação da origem. (shrink)