This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ulrich Gacayan, RCJ August 3, 2009
The Role of Language in Object Transcendence (A Gadamerian response to Dreyfus and McDowell) By: Matthew King
In the article entitled The Role of Language in Object Transcendence: A Gadamerian response to Dreyfus and McDowell, David Vessey, the writer of the said article gives attention on the role of language in objet transcendence by appreciating Gadamer¶s philosophical hermeneutic. At the beginning of the article David Vessey opens the case on why and how Gadamer understand and explain human perceptual awareness of objects. Vessey has two points: First: Appreciating Gadamer¶s philosophical hermeneutic. It needs be take up seriously in a phenomenological tradition. Because the nature of perception is the central theme from the very start of phenomenology and the central theme of our perception is the nature of our awareness of object transcendence. Gadamer¶s view of perception inherits from classical phenomenology. Thus perception mediated on our consciousness. When it comes on the characterization of object perception phenomenologist has some disagreements. However Gadamer didn¶t wrote a clear detail about the nature of perception. Second: The debate between Hubert Dreyfus and John McDowell. Dreyfus argues against McDowell denial o the possibility of a non-conceptual awareness of objects. McDowell relies on Gadamer as he makes his own stand as response to Dreyfus. McDowell takes Gadamer distinction between an environment and a world but Dreyfus thought that McDowell didn¶t appreciate the phenomenological tradition like Martin Heidegger and Merleau Ponty. Gadamer was criticized by
Dreyfus for not appreciating and taking Heidegger¶s vorhabe that there is a level of every day practice and vorsicht beneath our theoretical presuppositions and assumptions. David Vessey addresses his general question on how does Gadamer articulate object transcendence and it was explained his next essay on Dreyfus objection to Gadamer¶s inheritance of Heidegger. It says that Gadamer appreciate what Heidegger¶s called the fore-structure of interpretation; fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception. According to Vessey, Dreyfus is correct that Gadamer stress vorurteilen and vorhabe .On Gadamer ³On the Body´, Gadamer take use of Husserl¶s Lieb, (distinction between our bodies as lived), and Korper (our body as physical object). According to Gadamer our body is not aware of, but rather that which we are aware of our world. On McDowell use of Gadamer, he focuses his view on the discussion of ³Mind and the World´. McDowell argues that it must be first informed by concepts in order to justify beliefs for perception in order to function. He describes the distinction a world and an environment according to Gadamer. Because of the distinction between a world and an environment, McDowell makes his stand that animal perception is different from human perception. In answering the question raised by Vessey at the start of the said article with regards to human worldly existence, he explained it in linguisticality and factualness. Acknowledging Gadamer by McDowell on the difference between a world and an environment gives essential to the world. In this article David Vessey put emphasis on the role of language in object transcendence. Thus the problem that occurs this article is that Gadamer did not takes stands on Heidegger¶s vorhabe (there is an everyday practice). However this article describes on Gadamer¶s philosophical hermeneutic and view of object transcendence. Language comes from the world according to Gadamer and it presented the world. It takes place and necessary condition for having the world. World is always describe through language and it belongs to the nature perception. Language can be applied to the very perception of the things. Object is
recognized not only as an independent existing but it can be through the language. Thus this article shows the role of language transcendence.
Chris Ivan Lagarde Metaphysics Fr. Ulrich Gacayan, RCJ August 3, 2009
Heidegger¶s Etymological Method (Discovering being by recovering the richness of the word) By: David Vessey
Heidegger is considered as one of the greatest thinker in the field of philosophy. Great are his works. Indeed he is a brilliant thinker. In this article the author subject his essay on Heidegger¶s etymology. The discussion in this article mainly focuses on Heidegger¶s etymology as language is concern. This article objects the problem behind Heidegger¶s language. The problem is that the language and the words that he used in his books. Reading Heidegger¶s work is not an easy one like just reading an ordinary text. On the first place the first thing to be noticed on Heideggers work is the languages r although he is a German his word are quietly different. Indeed the problem is found in the language of Heidegger. In order to have a vivid understanding of Heidegger¶s work one must to have an inclination with Heidegger¶s literature. For the reason that Heidegger has his own literature. He used words and terms that can only be found in his works. Thus Heidegger has his own jargon. Heidegger¶s language poses certain problem to those who are not native German speakers and especially to English native reader. English is considered as the universal language in the world. But when it comes in translating the work of Heidegger in other language there are certain words that cannot be directly translated. Because those words are only found in his works even in German literature it¶s not there. That¶s why one must really incline with Heidegger¶s literature. As this article is concerned the author stresses the method in understanding Heidegger work. It is important to know the words used by Heidegger in order to understand what Heidegger means when he coined his own word. Matthew King the author of this article described how Heidegger does his etymology in making his own terms. It is important to know the method by Heidegger to rich the very meaning of the word and to know does it mean. Every word has a correspondent etymology and history behind. In order to seek the very meaning one must follow Heidegger¶s etymological method. This method by Heidegger does not mean that it will replace and put down other method and modern concepts. The purpose of this method is to rich out the original meaning of the word. Perhaps reading not knowing the meaning of the word is obscure to understand the real purpose of the term. The way Heidegger makes use of his own term always delves and incorporates by hermeneutics. It is the role of hermeneutics to trace back and recover the meaning of the text. Since we are dealing here with the etymological method of Heidegger it would be nice to recall what did Schleiermacher said about understanding the text that in order to understand more fully the meaning of the text one must go back to the author of the text. She/he is the one who knows it better. Considered that Heidegger is an author, one must really go back and follow Heidegger¶s method in order to have a better understanding of his work. It restores the original meaning of the word. Therefore in this article Heidegger¶s etymological method is a very important element in order to recover the original meaning of the text. The concerned of this article is to save the language used by Heidegger and retrieve the real meaning of the word. Indeed this method proposed by the author of this article is a great help for the reader of Heidegger¶s work.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.