|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew asked:
|
|
What are the main differences between what Heidegger and Sartre believe is the most fundamental
aspect of human existence? Which is more plausible?
|
|
============
|
|
Sartre starts from the experience of man — from the cogito."Outside the Cartesian cogito all views
are only probable." he writes in Existentialism is a Humanism.Sartre's subjectivism means, in his own
words, on the one hand "that an individual chooses and makes himself" and on the other hand "that it
is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity." Heidegger starts from the Hegelian and
neo-Kantian position that "nothing can be more harmful and unworthy of a philosopher than the vulgar
appeal to an experience." (Intro to section 3 of The Science of Logic). Instead, like Hegel, Heidegger
starts from logic, or more properly the philosophical logos.(Taking logosphilosophically, not
literalistically, we find in these two thinkers no reduction of logic to semantics, mechanics and
algebra, which reduces philosophy, as Wittgenstein rightly saw, to a game.)
|
|
The most fundamental aspect of human existence for Sartre is the cogito,and for Heidegger, Being.
Heidegger criticizes the cogitoof Descartes. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" as if the one
follows from the other, but my 'am-ness' (Being) comes first. I always already "am" to begin with, but
the question of what this that I am is,has never been properly raised. Being and Time(1927)
attempts a preliminary investigation of the question of Being.
|
|
In old fashioned onto-theological terms, Heidegger starts 'from above' and Sartre 'from below'. Sartre
says existentialism is a humanism. Heidegger thinks humanism is an ontology which 'forgets' the
question of Being (Seinsvergessenheit). As usual in this kind of philosophy, these are not questions
or stances which one can look at as 'mere ideas', or from the outside as 'the philosophy of Sartre or
Heidegger'. The point, as Heidegger says somewhere else, is not 'is what I am saying plausible?' The
point is to follow the movement of the showing.
|
|
Matthew Del Nevo
|
|
www.sicetnon.com
|
|