RESUMO No Curso de Inverno de 1928/29, Heidegger afirmou que a matematização irrestrita no conhecimento dos seres vivos resultaria numa falha no propósito de elaborar a ontologia da vida orgânica. No presente artigo, examino as razões que justificam essa concepção. Com base em interpretações das investigações de biólogos como Hans Driesch J. v. Uexküll e Hans Spemann, o argumento de Heidegger integra quatro passos: 1) uma abordagem mereológica do corpo orgânico, concebido como uma unidade funcional de aptidões e intrinsecamente relacionado (...) a um ambiente; 2) uma análise formal da constituição dinâmica das aptidões, cuja estrutura pulsional consiste no atravessamento regulatório de uma dimensão; 3) uma interpretação do princípio de unificação das aptidões em termos da aptidão para comportar-se com algo em um ambiente. Esta argumentação leva a duas conclusões gerais: a matematização irrestrita implica uma descrição mecânica que supõe a desconsideração da determinação modal dos organismos; a estrutura dimensional, regulatória e protointencional das aptidões orgânicas é o fator limitante da matematização da vida.ABSTRACT In the Winter Course of 1928/29, Heidegger declared that an unrestricted mathematical determination in the knowledge of living beings would imply a failure in the purpose of developing the ontology for organic life. In this paper, I examine the reasons that justify this idea. Based on interpretations of biological researches carried by Hans Driesch, J. v. Uexküll and Hans Spemann, Heidegger’s argument has three steps 1) a mereological account of the organic body, which is conceived both as a functional unity of capabilities and as intrinsically related to an environment; 2) a formal analysis of the dynamic constitution of capabilities, which instinctually driven structure is a regulatory traversing of a dimension; 3) an interpretation of the unification principle of capabilities, which is conceived as a capability of behaving towards something within an environment. This argument entails two general conclusions: first, the unrestricted mathematical determination implies a mechanical description that presupposes the neglect of the modal structure of organisms; second, the dimensional, regulatory and proto-intentional structure of the organic capabilities is the limiting factor of the mathematical determination of living organisms. (shrink)

The work of Hubert Dreyfus interweaves productively ideas from, among others, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. A central element in Dreyfus' hugely influential interpretation of the former is the proposal that, if we are to—in some sense—'make sense' of intentionality, then we must recognize what Dreyfus calls the 'background'. Though Dreyfus has, over the years, put the notion of the 'background' to a variety of philosophical uses,1 considerations familiar from the literature inspired by Wittgenstein's reflections on rule-following have played an important role (...) in motivating the case for believing that we need to recognize the 'background' and thus also in identifying precisely what it is about the intentional that supposedly needs to be 'made sense of'. Dreyfus argues that what he calls 'representationalism' will land us with an unstoppable 'regress of rules'. In this paper, I first argue that there are actually two different arguments that Dreyfus invokes; I then go on to evaluate quite how, in the light of the problems that those arguments reveal, our position might be thought to be improved by our recognizing the 'background'. Given that various philosophical positions designed to deal with these problems have emerged within the Wittgensteinian literature, an obvious question to ask is whether the position that Dreyfus would have us adopt is essentially one of those positions. If it isn't, then how does it differ? There is surely a variety of ways in which such a comparison might be carried out and what I offer is only one. I argue that if, through a recognition of the 'background', we are thought to have acquired solutions to those problems, then it's not at all clear that the supposed solutions that emerge work. So I explore instead the possibility that that recognition forms part of an attempt to 'dissolve' those problems. In order to bring some clarity to that possibility I consider a number of different ways in which Dreyfus' proposals might be interpreted by drawing on ideas set out by John McDowell (and I suggest that his view of one of the 'regress' arguments is anticipated by Heidegger himself). I then identify and assess some of the consequences of adopting such McDowellian readings. My sense is that Dreyfus is on the side of the angels, so to speak. But if what is right in his proposals is to become clear, and if he is to be spared some obvious objections that those proposals may elicit, we need to be clear about just what kind of contribution those proposals are meant to make. In pursuing that clarity, I am attempting to follow through on the comparison of Wittgensteinian and Heideggerian ideas that Dreyfus and his supporters have initiated: what has yet to be clarified is how and why recognizing the 'background' will allow us to 'cope better' with the puzzles in the rule-following literature that they have cited in making a case for the need to recognize the 'background'. Ultimately, I will argue that assessing this matter may require a yet broader comparison of Wittgensteinian and Heideggerian themes, one which raises questions about what we take 'doing ontology' and 'doing phenomenology' to be. (shrink)

Modes-of-being figure centrally in Heidegger's masterwork Being and Time. Testimony to this is Heidegger's characterisation of two of his most celebrated enquiries—the Existential analytic and the Zeug analysis—as investigations into the respective modes-of-being of the entities concerned. Yet despite the importance of this concept, commentators disagree widely about what a mode-of-being is. In this paper, I systematically outline and defend a novel and exegetically grounded interpretation of this concept. Strongly opposed to Kantian readings, such as those advocated by Taylor Carman (...) and Cristina Lafont, I interpret a mode-of-being as a universal that defines a district —that is, a natural class of entities that ought to be conceptualised in a special way. As such, every mode-of-being plays an important metaphysical and epistemic role: serving both to unify a natural class of a high degree of generality and as the interpretandum of an act yielding the basic-concepts pertaining to the entities therein. In explicating and arguing for this interpretation, I attribute a characteristically Aristotelian philosophical position to the early Heidegger, encompassing both metaphysical and epistemological realism and a conceptualist theory of universals. (shrink)