The article first outlines Edmund Husserl’s idea of “complete transformation” (völlige Umwendung) and the philosophy of “the turn” (Kehre) of Martin Heidegger. In the following chapter it is shown that you can understand both Husserl as well as Heidegger in the light of “the essential turn” in the German mysticism of the fourteenth century. In this way it becomes clear that Husserl’s idea of a “complete transformation” seems to be a forgotten “mystical” impetus of phenomenology, which was much more (...) realized by Martin Heidegger than by Husserl. In this way Heidegger’s philosophy of “the turn” appears as an important modern approach of the mystical philosophy of transformation. (shrink)

For Heidegger, the modern understanding of beeing is located within the space-time horizon of metaphysics in the form of a nihilistic "will to power", which makes it increasingly difficult for it to free itself from metaphysical thinking. With the progress and success of science and technology, the addiction of the modern age to metaphysics even seems to increase; man will ultimately be brought into the closed horizon of a tragic and nihilistic interpretation of beeing. The age of enlightenment, is in (...) fact - according to the thesis of the author - not yet at an end: Only if enlightenment, through basic "philosophical thought", reflects on its own foundation in a more fundamental and critical way and really makes the "turning" ("Kehre"), might it be able to overcome its unexplored addiction to the horizon of metaphysics, as well as to overcome modern man's alienation of the self and being, and to find its way back to the Greek beginnings of western thought. (shrink)

Within the context of Heidegger’s claim that his thinking has moved from the “meaning of being” to the “truth of being” and finally to the “place of being,” this paper examines the “spatial” motifs that become pronounced in his post-1930 attempts to think being apart from temporality. My contention is that his “shift” (Wendung) in thinking was a move beyond his earlier focus upon the project-horizon of the meaning (Sinn) of being, i.e., time, based on the existential hermeneutic of mortality, (...) and instead towards a focus upon the “space”—variously discussed in terms of the open, the clearing, the expanse, the region, etc.—that allows fur such horizonal projection. The very matter of thought that becomes discussed in the 1930s Beiträge as the “turning” (Kehre) of “en-ownment” (Ereignis) involves this clearing or opening of a “space” in the strife of unconcealment-concealment. This in turn underscores the alterity from out of which the emission of the Sinn of being is possible. In the 1940s and ‘50s this spacing becomes developed in terms of a “regionalizing” (Gegnen) in explicit distinction from the “horizon.” I shall also examine the implications for human spatiality, i.e., our receptivity vis-à-vis this alterity of Ereignis or Gegnen, which Heidegger discusses in terms of “letting” or “releasement.”. (shrink)

: Two major philosophers of the twentieth century, the German existential phenomenologist Martin Heidegger and the seminal Japanese Kyoto School philosopher Nishida Kitarō are examined here in an attempt to discern to what extent their ideas may converge. Both are viewed as expressing, each through the lens of his own tradition, a world in transition with the rise of modernity in the West and its subsequent globalization. The popularity of Heidegger's thought among Japanese philosophers, despite its own admitted limitation to (...) the Western "history of being," is connected to Nishida's opening of a uniquely Japanese path in its confrontation with Western philosophy. The focus is primarily on their later works (the post-Kehre Heidegger and the works of Nishida that have been designated "Nishida philosophy"), in which each in his own way attempts to overcome the subject-object dichotomy inherited from the tradition of Western metaphysics by looking to a deeper structure from out of which both subjectivity and objectivity are derived and which embraces both. For Heidegger, the answer lies in being as the opening of unconcealment, from out of which beings emerge, and for Nishida, it is the place of nothingness within which beings are co-determined in their oppositions and relations. Concepts such as Nishida's "discontinuous continuity," "absolutely self-contradictory identity" (between one and many, whole and part, world and things), the mutual interdependence of individuals, and the self-determination of the world through the co-relative self-determination of individuals, and Heidegger's "simultaneity" (zugleich) and "within one another" (ineinander) (of unconcealment and concealment, presencing and absencing), and their "between" (Zwischen) and "jointure" (Fuge) are examined. Through a discussion of these ideas, the suggestion is made of a possible "transition" (Übergang) of both Western and Eastern thinking, in their mutual encounter, both in relation to each other and each in relation to its own past history, leading to both a self-discovery in the other and to a simultaneous self-reconstitution. (shrink)

Artikkeli toimii johdantona Martin Heideggerin suomennettuun teokseen Johdatus metafysiikkaan. Se avaa historiallisia tilanteita, joissa kyseiset luennot alun perin pidettiin (1935) ja julkaistiin (1953). Johdatus metafysiikkaan -luennoista voidaan löytää epäsuora kuvaus Heideggerin suhteesta kansallissosialismiin hänen rehtorikautensa (1933–1934) jälkeisinä vuosina ja ne dokumentoivat myös filosofian olosuhteita ja ehtoja kansallissosialismin aikana. Filosofisesti luennot kiteyttävät Heideggerin Olemisen ja ajan (1927) jälkeisen käänteen (Kehre) ja esittävät ohjelmallisen luonnoksen Heideggerin myöhäisajattelun tärkeimmistä suuntaviivoista.

In this article I claim that distinction should be made between an "early Derrida" and a "later Derrida," similar to the one made between Wittgenstein of the Tractatus and Wittgenstein of the Investigations, or between Heidegger before the Kehre and Heidegger after it. Acceptance of such a distinction enables us to understand Derrida's teachings more clearly, to solve a disagreement in Derrida scholarship, and to understand his deconstruction as less contradictory. I shall also explain the reasons for, and causes (...) of, the change in Derrida' teachings and distinguish between those aspects that changed and those that did not. (shrink)

Tra il 1950 e il 1976, malgrado le prove e i contrattempi, Patočka ha ripreso spesso la sua meditazione sul mondo nel quale viviamo e dal quale la scienza ci allontana nello momento stesso in cui ne scopre l’oggettività. I dieci saggi qui raccolti permettono di seguire l’itinerario di pensiero che ha portato il filosofo ceco a porre la questione di una fenomenologia trans-soggettiva e a ripensare, in questa prospettiva, il concetto aristotelico di movimento. Lungo il percorso appare evidente che (...) dal 1910 Husserl liberava il significato fondamentale del “problema” di un mondo naturale; tuttavia, soltanto una fenomenologia che porta a compimento ciò che la Kehre heideggeriana inaugura, ha qualche possibilità di reperire le giustificazioni di un quotidiano in cui mito, lavoro e scienza trovano senso in queste grandi manifestazioni della libertà con l’altro che sono il sacrificio e la cosiddetta vita normale. (shrink)

Dans La vie de l’esprit, Hannah Arendt propose une interprétation inédite du tournant (Kehre) survenu au sein de la pensée de Martin Heidegger au milieu des années trente. Arendt comprend en effet le tournant comme un événement biographique à situer entre les deux tomes qui regroupent les cours et essais que Heidegger a consacrés à Nietzsche entre 1936 et 1946. Selon elle, souci et Volonté de puissance viendraient à ne faire qu’un dans le premier tome du Nietzsche, alors que (...) Heidegger opérerait une répudiation de la volonté dans le second. La thèse d’Arendt peut-elle être confirmée par une lecture attentive du Nietzsche ? Sa conception du tournant permet-elle d’aborder le problème selon un angle adéquat ? Nous tenterons de répondre à ces questions à la lumière des fils conducteurs que seront pour nous les concepts de « souci », de « résolution » et de « décision ». (shrink)

The main aim of this article consists in an interpretation of the concept of Ereignis (Event) in the work of Martin Heidegger, explaining central aspects of the modification produced in the development of this work by the movement known as Kehre (turn-around), which implies the transition from the fundamental ontology or analytics of the finitude for the thought of the truth of Being.

The Martin Heidegger’s conference “On the essence of truth” was repeatedly pronounced between 1930 and 1932, published in 1943 and continued to be adjusted by the author until the sixties. In many ways, it seems to have a special role as a kind of “hinge” between Heidegger’s Being and Time and after the “turn” [Kehre] of his thinking, process that began precisely from thirties. With such intermediary role, the conference begins with conceptions still addressed from the perspective of Being (...) and Time, as the question of truth; but inserts fundamental themes, relating to the later work of the German thinker, as the notion of the veiling of being, the concept of errance and the perspective, only started at this conference, from a transformation of the very concept of essence [Wesen]. (shrink)