[straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba] Straipsnyje pristatomas svarbių M. Heideggerio technikos filosofijos elementų formavimosi kontekstas tarpukario Vokietijos autorių tekstuose. Aptariamos paralelės tarp Heideggerio ir E. Cassirerio, E. Jüngerio bei O. Spenglerio industrializacijos proceso filosofinių apmąstymų. Nagrinėjant šių mąstytojų moderniosios technikos koncepcijų ryšius išryškėja, kaip vystėsi Heideggerio tekstams būdinga industrializacijos proceso artikuliacija bei jo technikos filosofijai svarbi problematika, liečianti planetarinį moderniosios technikos išplitimą ir poveikį bei technikos, kaip Vakarų ir šiuolaikinės žmonijos apskritai lemties, sampratą.

Figal has long been recognized as one of the most insightful interpreters working in the tradition of philosophical hermeneutics and its leading themes concerned with ancient Greek thought, art, language, and history. With this book, Figal presses this tradition of philosophical hermeneutics in new directions. In his effort to forge philosophical hermeneutics into a hermeneutical philosophy, Figal develops an original critique of the objectification of the world that emerges in modernity as the first stage in his systematic treatment of the (...) elements of experience hermeneutically understood. Breaking through the prejudices of modernity, but not sacrificing the importance and challenge of the objective world that confronts us and is in need of interpretation, Figal reorients how it is that philosophy should take up some of its most longstanding and stubborn questions. World, object, space, language, freedom, time, and life are refreshed as philosophical notions here since they are each regarded as elements of human life engaged in the task assigned to each of us—the task of understanding ourselves and our world. (shrink)

In the ‘Rectoral Address’, of 1933, Martin Heidegger indicates that the crisis of the West, articulated by Nietzsche as the ‘death of God’, was a central concern in his attempt to rethink and reform higher education in 1933–1934. While Heidegger soon thereafter appears to have abandoned serious efforts at any practical transformation of the modern university, his reflection on Nietzsche, the ‘death of God’, and ‘European nihilism’ becomes deeper and more urgent throughout the 1930s and 1940s. The question then arises: (...) What are the consequences of this confrontation with Nietzsche and the problem of nihilism for our thinking about the current state and task of education? The following article takes up this question through a consideration of Heidegger’s essay, ‘Nietzsche’s Word: “God is Dead”’. (shrink)

Heidegger understands technology as a mode of revealing, i.e., a way of discovering and comprehending reality, which is not merely the result of human invention and operation, but rather a destiny which surpasses and addresses the human being, insofar as its root lay deep in the very advent of philosophy, of the West and it position toward being as a whole. How can we still have interest in such ontological conception of technology as a destiny? What is its topical relevance (...) for the present? What is its contribution to think the transformative action of technology, i.e., the opportunity and threat it brings with it? (shrink)

Apoiando-se na fenomenologia filosófica e numa ciência factual , o artigo começa formulando dois problemas relativos à tolerância: 1) poder suportar os diferentes sentidos de realidade ou, respectivamente, os diferentes modos de dizer o real, e 2) poder estabelecer relacionamentos objetificantes e não-objetificantes com o mundo. Depois de mostrar que esses problemas foram sistematicamente negligenciados não somente pela literatura teológica, mas também pela filosófica , o artigo prossegue salientando que a linguagem apropriada para descrever a realidade objetificável pode ser invasiva (...) e mesmo aniquiladora - e, neste sentido, intolerante - se usada para falar da realidade não-objetificável, e que atitudes objetificantes podem destruir os modos não-objetificáveis de relacionamento com o mundo e outros seres humanos, sendo, portanto, ameaçadoras da própria essência do humano.Based on philosophical phenomenology and a positive science , this paper starts by formulating two problems of tolerance: the one being that of coming to terms with different senses of the real and different modes of talking about it, and the other that of reconciling our objectifying with our non-objectifying relationships to the world. After showing at some length that both problems have been generally neglected not only in the theological but also in the philosophical literature, the post-modern as well as the enlightened one, it will be shown that a language appropriate for describing the objectifiable reality can be intrusive and even destructive - and thus intolerant -, if used to talk about the non-objectifiable reality, and that objectifying attitudes can destroy the non-objetifying ways of relating to the world and to other persons, being, in this respect, a threat to the very essence of our humanity. (shrink)