Professor Andrew Bowie defends Heidegger
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 гру 2015
- Professor Andrew Bowie defends Heidegger’s position as the most important Philosopher in history during the Balloon debate at the 2015 OUP Philosophy festival. global.oup.com/academic/categ...
Some of philosophy's most important historical figures are at risk! Which of them will you save for posterity? In this debate, a range of editors and authors from OUP's Oxford World's Classics and Very Short Introduction series defend philosophers from destruction. They will fight it out to keep their favourite in the balloon but ultimately, the decision is up to you! Participants include: Kathryn Sutherland (Adam Smith), Roger Crisp (Aristotle), Chris Janaway (Nietzsche), Henry Merivale (Hume), Andrew Bowie (Heidegger), Christopher Taylor (Socrates). This event was part of the OUP Philosophy Festival which took place at Blackwells bookshop.
© Oxford University Press
Heidegger starts with human finitude and the every-day.I am very glad to have had opportunity to hear Andrew Bowie lecture on Adorno, ecology, art, and continue to get a great deal from his writing. Rudiger Safranski's biography of Heidegger is one I'm sure Andrew Bowie has endorsed, and which I found through his work. I recommend it.
Thank you Dr. Bowie : )
Enjoyed this very much. What needs to be fleshed out, I think, is that Heidegger's poor judgment should be simultaneously differentiated from his philosophy and associated with it. It must be differentiated from it in the sense that fascism is not inherent in his philosophy, as those who refuse to read him argue. And it must be associated with it in the sense in which his advocacy of finitude as the basis of thinking doesn't exonerate his poor judgment but explains it: Heidegger is finite, like most of us! It should also be associated with his philosophy in the sense in which Heidegger, as most who have read him know, has negotiated, successfully in my opinion, the need for humility in thinking and in our judgements about faulty decision making. The luxury of hindsight is not afforded historical, temporal beings. We do not know infinity nor can we reason from it.
If only you were drinking wine and listening to flute girls while making these speeches, then you'd really have yourself a philosophical gathering!
Oh no,,,I used to joke about the absurdity of literary festivals,,after all everyone can read,,,by imagining a philosophy festival where punters paid to watch people think ,Never in my wildest dreams,,,,6mins 46secs to prove MH the most important philosopher in World History, Incroyable,Magnifique, At poetry readings Flann O Brien put his fingers in the corners of his mouth and tried to pull his face off,,,what does this fatuity deserve
Cool.
Nothing eternal in Heidegger. LOL
Heidegger was not useful as a thinker and this defense is horrible.
I agree with your description on this defense, it was horrible. However, I disagree with your assertion that Heidigger was "not useful as a thinker".
Not withstanding his indefensible affiliation with the Nazi party, and his unfortunate absence of repudiating that relationship, to read "Being and Time" and say he provides no utility for thinking is a discredit to all thought.