Heidegger vs. Kant

all right smon uh I guess we can you

give me about 15 more minutes of your

time is that okay yeah excellent because

I really do want to ask you this about

the idea of subjective uh well why why

is haiger not a uh dogmatic subjectivist

on idealist and I just just for the vi I

think this is a really important except

you you claim in in this in this book on

heik is being a time in page 28 it's a

bit of a mouthful but you say tus

perceptual experience is rendered

intelligible through a process of

ideation general generaliz you know I'll

probably skip that part I'll probably

skip that part and the important bit is

uh you you speak about the universal and

particular and then you say uh the

important thing here is that uh this

move from the paricular to the universal

takes place at the level of intuition it

is not something seen in the object and

not a subjective construction oops I

think we lost someon there again

excellent so just just a last bit that I

wanted to read out from from that except

was you say here the categorical forms

are not the subjective constructs of

Acts but the objects that manifest

themselves in those acts that was such a

such an important little excer from the

from the book uh salmon so uh I I guess

my that's fromer book is it that's

correct from the from the from your

lecture introduction oh sorry from your

lecture Hader for beginers which is

about a a 30 page lecture and it's it's

excellent you speak about the a priori

phenomenology it's it's it's so good uh

but simply the question is yeah why is

hiiga not a dogmatic subjectivist or an

idealist what what differentiates him

from uh more of like a Buran

idealist oh uh well he's not a burking

idealist because you doesn't believe

that um you know things are things are

just perceptions which are in the head

so um he's not an empirical idealist

right so he um so that's that's easy

he's not um a dogmatic anything he's

taking the the

critical turn of of k um you can see

haider's heer's uh approach to say

something like

reality uh in paragraph 43 of being in

time as I think of it as an

existential deepening of transcendental

idealism so transcendental idealism in

in can is the idea that we live in an

empirically real world right there real

world full of real

stuff um that's in indisputable and that

wasn't the case for for for Barkley um

but that world is a world which is a

world which we which we give order to we

give shape to uh and that

uh what count thinks the the categories

of the understanding are what give uh

shape and order to that empirically real

world so K's claim is that uh an

empirical realist is also a

transcendental idealist that the uh the

world is indeed a really real world but

it's a world which is which is shaped

and ordered by by human activity or it's

observed dependent you could say and I

see that as um that that's that's true

uh what that KS

problem is that can

operates uh for heiger at the level of

what he calls The Presence at hand so

that uh K's K's uh K's Philosophy for

hidinger um is the the right intuition

with the

wrong um the wrong ontology

uh heidinger thinks that the present at

Hand by which he means the seeing the

world with Phil philosopher spectacles

seeing the world in intellectualist uh

terms theoretic terms uh seeing the

world and then asking questions like

well how do I know that you've got a

mind or you're a robot or or you know

how do you how do you know that I am who

I say I am and so on so forth all of

these questions arise with the wrong

ontology the ontology of the pres at

hand so what haiger tries to do in being

in time is to give us another onology

which is an onology of the ready the

ready to hand the handiness of the

availability of the world and this is

where and this is where draus is right

this is a kind of pragmatist

approach and um and hid's pragmatism in

quotation marks

um you know it's both it's both realist

and idealists right it's both committed

to the idea that there's a really real

world and that really real world is

something which is shaped uh and

apprehended by The Observers that

understand that world and so um and if

there's a if there's a um if there's a

philosopher that I think um is most

similar to um heiger in the certainly in

the American tradition it would be

William James

and James develops in his in his his

late work his unfinished work this idea

of what he calls radical

empiricism and I see heiger as being

pretty consistent with that and that's

an attempt how do

you and so haider's

question this is also what's wrong with

philosophy what's wrong with philosophy

is that

philosophy uh

reduces the flux of experience to

Concepts to these static abstract

Concepts like thinking substance or

monad or whatever it might be uh heiger

is is concerned with two

things uh he's concerned with uh uh

movement that whatever's going on is in

movement um everything is moving all the

time we live in a world of movement and

movement is time and time is movement

and all of that

and uh and how do but and how do we how

do we express movement how do we say

movement because if we say Movement we

fix it we reduce it to a kind of Still

Point how do we express movement as

movement very hard thing to do and

something which something of which

philosophy is is quite bad at doing with

the exception of heiger

and I think hegel's dialectic is is a

way of thinking about movement too and

the second thing it's about is meaning

right the the world is Meaningful Thea

and that meaning is not in the head that

meaning is out there in the

world uh it's it's a meaning that we we

apprehend the world just the world just

hangs together and is significant that's

just a fact then how do we describe that

is the question which he sets himself so

he's not so that's that's how I

understand hiding his position and then

um in division two of being in time he

takes all of that and just kind of spins

it into uh into

another dimension which is even more

exciting and uh does that help

absolutely it does in fact just the last

question on on how to go summon just

because of time constraints it's a so

why why is it again a very naive

question but you know for for for a

person who's a

neoi why is it that hiiga uses the

category of a design introduces a design

instead of a kajo or a subject what

what's unique about design for for for

hia hia is trying to invent a new

language because he thinks that the

language of the

tradition uh is a is a is a language

that blinds us because we think we

understand what it means so if I say uh

I'm a mind or I'm a person or I'm am a

spirit body you or I'm the brain or

whatever we think we know what those

things mean and haider's view is that

that um tradition has to be destroyed

that's his that's his has to be

destroyed so he is committed in the

larger project of which being in time is

a part to basically the destruction of

the history of philosophy he thinks that

modern philosophy in particular and the

criminal really is is always dayar for

him daycar has reduced the world to a

world of subjective experiences of uh a

reality which is understood as substance

and that is the wrong ontology for

thinking about being in the world for

him so he uses the word does the term

darine it's a term you can find in

German it just it's a it's a perfectly

ordinary term it just means existence

and he uses that to uh designate

us and then the question is well uh is

darine the human being well yeah yeah

we're darine but then could there be

design beyond the human and that's a

question which you know there's a lot of

debate and interpretation about that I

think um you could think about animal

design there's a there's a philosopher

called John hogland who talks about uh

you have a design of a city you do of a

whole place so there could be a way you

can get from heiger into so heiger

wants a name

for uh who we

are uh that is not just subjective right

because if we say subject we think we

understand so hi's hiiga strategy is to

defamiliarize us with what we think we

know and to actually get us to start

thinking and for that he thought we

needed a new a new vocabulary and the

first item in that vocabulary is the

idea of

darine so uh if you translate it as

person then you think oh well I know

what a person is you know and but then

you miss the point you've got to go with

the the kind of but thought experiment

the heidig is trying to get us to yeah

under to to dine is the is is us but as

something really quite strange I think

he describes da as The Happening of

strangeness and I quite like that and I

think uh it's probably why when reading

hiig gu as you described there is some

sort of conversion experience once you

start getting into the world of hiiga