3

While Heidegger's Dasein seeks to redefine the human subject in terms of being-in-the-world, does he fully break away from Husserl's subjectivity and lebenswelt?

In his detailed study Not Saved, Peter Sloterdijk offers a poignant critique of Heidegger, suggesting that Heidegger's retreat into a philosophy of rootedness and origin (Ursprunglichkeit) is a form of escapism from the cosmopolitan reality of human expansion. Sloterdijk challenges Heidegger's notion of Dasein by proposing an anthropotechnics approach, where humans are understood as beings in constant kinetic movement, shaping and reshaping themselves and their world. This view implies a more dynamic and self-determining human condition, constrasting with Heidegger's static Dasein.

Sloterdijk's critique extends to Heidegger's later works where he perceives a parochial return to a Catholic-Augustinian view of humanity as inherently flawed and incapable of overcoming this flaw without metaphysical or spiritual intercession. Sloterdijk contends that this represents a perversion of the human potential for self-transcendence and growth, thus limiting the freedom and creative power that he takes to be intrinsic to human nature.

Are we to gather from this that there is a deep ontological determinism or lack of freedom in Heidegger's conception of Dasein?

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    This critique is not new, Feenberg ascribes determinism to late Heidegger in Questioning Technology based on similar arguments, for a critique of them see Casil. The truth is that Heidegger, like Kant, hoped to remove metaphysical presuppositions that lead to the determinism/free will dilemma, and, unlike Kant, did not even consider it directly. Kant's 'dissolution' is viewed as deeply unsatisfactory today. Dicerson compares it to Heidegger's and argues that his is unsatisfactory too.
    – Conifold
    Commented May 21 at 7:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

The biggest shock of Heidegger's philosophy to me is that he reveals through a series of arguments that human beings have an innate tendency to sink.

According to Heidegger, everyone has the ability to plan for the future and live according to their own wishes, but almost everyone chooses to live according to the opinions of "everyone." But when life is difficult, when mistakes need to be punished, "everyone" has become a code name for no one, and all the responsibility and punishment can only be borne by individuals alone.

Specifically, life beliefs, marriage, career, including a series of critical personal choices. But when people face these critical choices, they are always afraid of disobeying the will of "everyone", afraid of being different, afraid of being laughed at by others.

This is a very common but very strange phenomenon, because it is equivalent to your life's most important things based on pleasing others. Most of the time, people don't care about you; they're talking about you because they're bored after dinner.

From this point of view, I think Heidegger's "Dasein" is certainly free, but due to some inexplicable reasons, "Dasein" is highly likely to be Destined, because most people will choose to give up freedom.

Improve this answer
3
  • So the biggest shock wasn't that it was incredibly compatible with N*ziism?
    – JonathanZ
    Commented Jul 27 at 3:19
  • 1
    People tend to sink into the They and think of Dasein as a thing as seen from the collective perspective of the They. But Dasein can be experienced authentically as being (not a being), hence "The inventive thinking of beyng does indeed not simply think up a concept [e.g. Dasein]; instead, it gains that liberation from mere beings which makes appropriate the determination of thinking on the basis of beyng." Contributions to Philosophy (GA 65), §265, p.364.
    – Chris Degnen
    Commented Jul 27 at 11:40
  • @Chris Degnen Thank you for your quotes and additions.
    – Mike Song
    Commented Jul 27 at 22:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .