Up Against the Object

7/23/2019 Up Against the Object

1/25

UP AGAINST THE OBJECT

John Harvey

Duquesne University

600 or!es Avenue

Pitts!ur"h# PA $%&'&

($&)*%&)%**&

harvey+,-uq.e-u


2/25

$

Abstract:I examine Heideggers attempt inBeing and Timeto overcome the endemic Westernsplit between subject and object and conclude, following an examination of passages including7. A. and44 (b) (), that it fails, even this radical wor! succumbing to the need for humans to

distinguish their experience from what is "out there#$ %he posit of the &bjective, though cast intodoubt repeatedl' b' s!eptics of var'ing metaph'sical preferences, has proven impossible tosha!e off# We can understand this objective imperative not b' wa' of traditional epistemolog'but through pragmatism, suggested b' Heidegger in such passages as (b)#


3/25

$

UP AGAINST THE OBJECT

*artin HeideggersBeing and Timeac+uires its sense of destin' from its role as a response to a

modern amnesia, the forgetfulness of eing# %hough Heidegger would li!el' repudiate the

comparison, he offers what I might call a ps'choanal'tic diagnosis of this malad' inAn

Introduction to Metaphysics(-./01 ./0/)2 "forgetfulness of being, which itself falls into

forgetfulness, is the un!nown but enduring impetus to metaph'sical +uestioning$ (p# ./)# %his is

precisel' the 3reudian model of repressed ps'chic material as the cause of conscious

phenomena#$Being and Timeaims to resurrect the +uestion concerning dem Sinn von Sein(Sein

und eit-hereafter S u. 1 H# .)# %his phrase is usuall' translated "the meaning of eing,$ but an

alternative which is attractive for various reasons is the rendering "sense of eing$ emplo'ed,

for example, b' Herbert 4pigelberg#

eginning with 4ein und 5eit, it becomes apparent, though onl' graduall' and indirectl', that

6sense of eing6 (64inn von 4ein6) means something much more specific# 3or here 6sense6 ischaracteri7ed mainl' as the final end (das Woraufhin) which ma!es a thing intelligible (-Sein und

eit1 p# .0.)# (4pigelberg 899., 8:0)

;ertainl', Sinnsometimes means "meaning$ inBeing and Time!as in "Sinn is that wherein the

intelligibilit' -"erst#nd$ich%eit1 of something maintains itself$ (H# .0.< Heidegger ./=8)# ut at

other points other senses of >sense are relevant, as in "4innis the &upon'hich o* a pro+ection

in terms o* hich something becomes inte$$igib$e as something, it gets its structure *rom a *ore'

having! a *ore'sight! and a *ore'conception$ (H# .0.< Heidegger ./=8< italics in original

?erman)# Here the emphasis on the >dimension (as Heidegger confusingl' calls it&) of the future

brings out the connotation of >sense as direction or orientation#


4/25

$

The problem

Heideggers ./8@ masterpiece attracted attention partl' because it seemed to be a

landmar! attempt to overcome the split between subject and object that is endemic in Western

philosoph' but which has come to be especiall' associated with the name of Aescartes# Walter

Baufmann paraphrased Heideggers admirers as sa'ing "that he is the great antiC;artesian who

has overcome the fatal bifurcation of matter and mind$ (./0=, 0)# Doan 4tambaugh has referred

to "%he initial attempt inBeing and Timeto overcome the subjectCobject split$ (4tambaugh

.//0, 89/)# It is notorious that once one has created a gulf between mind and world, it becomes

epistemologicall' impossible to get the two bac! together again, that is, to attain certain

!nowledge of what is "out there#$ %hus opens an ab'ss leading to s!epticism, relativism,

subjectivism, solipsism#

%he view that a major part of the significance ofBeing and Timeis its overcoming of the

subjectCobject split was inspired b' the explicit promise of the wor! itself# Heidegger introduces

the problem at H# 0/ b' noting that though the "subjectC&bjectCrelationship$ (which Heidegger

himself places in +uotes) seems obvious, the presupposition of it is fatal (verh#ngnisvo$$e) "if its

ontological necessit' and especiall' its ontological meaning -Sinn1 are to be left in the dar!$

(Heidegger ./=8)#

ut although in man' passages Heidegger steadfastl' refuses to identif' his distinctions

with the subjectCobject split, a case can be made thatBeing and Time!for all its brilliance, fails to

close the famous gap# In certain !e' passages related to Schein (semblance, illusion), Heidegger

ma!es a distinction e+uivalent to positing an object "out there#$ In what follows, I shall support

the above thesis with a comparison of Heideggers writingswith relevant points from earlier


5/25

&

thin!ers, intending to position Heideggers project within Western thoughts ultimatel'

unavoidable wrestling match with the &bject#

The role of time

It might be useful to begin with a s!etch of Heideggers conception of the structure of

Aasein (Heideggers term for human being,Being and Time -hereafterBT1 H# ..)# %wo of the

major themes of Heideggers chief wor! are time and disclosure# We have not understood these

themes until we see their intimate involvement2 3or Heidegger, primordial time is exactl' the

disclosure of things out of the future, for the future is the source of things as the' emanate

(literall' "flow out$) into disclosedness# %he Heidegger critic %homas 4heehan identified

disclosure as "the temporal occurrence ofbeing$ (4heehan .///)#Heidegger himself tells us, "the

present >arises -entspringt1 from or is held b' a future that hasCbeen -geesenden1$ (H# 09forCtheCsa!eCofCwhich,

obscures the reference to i$$e!>will#


15/25

(

The pressure of ends

I wish to develop the theme of pragmatism b' as!ing2 Wh' has er!ele' never convinced

an'oneJ Gll critics concede his brilliance, and the constant engagement with his ideas on the part

of philosophers since his time is at least implicit ac!nowledgement of the force of his arguments#

Is there a fatal flaw in his presentations that renders his wor!s unable to gather a followingJ

*ore li!el', his assumption as to what constitutes an ade+uate explanation is at odds with what

most Westerners re+uire# er!ele' shows that he cannot find matter in phenomena, but all that

most Westerners re+uire is that the positing of an entit' havepractica$ conse+uences touching on

affairs that interest them# It is enough for us that the assumption that rice, iron and ox'gen exist

has conse+uences for our lives (lives not as passivese6uences o* e9periencesbut as active

pro+ects)# It is pragmatism, not empiricism narrowl' construed, that convinces most people that

objects exist#

It is not m' contention here that it is useful to call Heidegger a pragmatist in the sense

that one can so call Eeirce, Dames and Aewe'#$' %here is too much in Heideggers sprawling

oeuvre that would stoutl' resist such a classification, such as his discussion of the call of

conscience (see, e#g#, BT 0=C0/) or his repeated insistence on the need for waiting (see

Heidegger ./==, part II, passim)# Father I call attention to pragmatic elements in his thin!ing in

order to buttress m' contention that in Heidegger as elsewhere it is pragmatic rather than

theoretical considerations that argue for a belief in entities in themselves, apart from appearance#

If we turn for further illustration to Heideggers beloved Earmenides, we see that he

appears initiall' to have thrown off not onl' all concern with empiricism but also all concern

with pragmatism# (efore we dismiss all reference to ancient pragmatism as anachronistic, we


16/25

&

must recall the subtitle to Dames boo! on pragmatism2A e ame *or Some 8$d ays o*

Thin%ing.) ut after his astonishing exposition of the Wa' of %ruth, which ertrand Fussell

called "a monstrous blow to commonsense$ (Fussell ./0/, 8:), Earmenides sets out a radicall'

different portrait of the world, a portrait that he calls "deceptive$ (?@, PIII# 08), "the

wa' of Illusion,$ and that can best be understood pragmaticall', that is, as the sort of thing we

have to assume in order to get on with our lives# In this section of the poem, he deals with the

opposites that are the necessar' components of the world of which we are conscious, contrasting

F >KL(PIII# 0=), ethereal flame, with QRSTM (PIII# 0/), un!nowing night,

though according to Earmenides strict principles the latter should be impossible, since the

un!nowing or unthin!ing cannot be, ? FK >Q? R ?V ?R W>X RY>L(III# .), "for

to thin! and to be are the same#$ $9Eragmatism as a justification for objective realit' ma!es itself

felt even before Elato#


17/25

*

Concluding unscientific postscript: The world abides

Idealists since Bant have repeatedl' tried to eliminate the inference from phenomena to

thingsCinCthemselves# (Mven Fussell, who never shoo! off his earl' idealism as thoroughl' as he

imagined, was still tr'ing to avoid this inference with his maxim of substituting construction out

of !nown entities for inference to un!nown entities#) Wh' do we believe in a world be'ond

phenomenaJ We feel compelled to# Whence this compulsionJ I have named as stimuli our desire

for things and our frustration in wrestling with recalcitrant objects# I conclude b' suggesting,

without argument, a further motive for our belief in the objective world# %his is a 'earning

toward the &ther# Without a neutral and objective world, there is no theater in which we can

touch and tangle#

REFERENCES

Gristotle (./08)# The or%s o* Aristot$e! Pol# .#;hicago2 Mnc'lopUdia ritannica#

;olish, *arcia O# (./:)# ";arolingian Aebates over Lihil and %enebrae2 a 4tud' in

%heological *ethod,$ Specu$um, Pol# 0/, Lo# , &ct# ./:, pp# @0@C@/0#

Aavid, *arian# (8990)# 6%he ;orrespondence %heor' of %ruth,6 The Stan*ord

ncyc$opedia o* -hi$osophy (;a$$ dition), Mdward L# 5alta (ed#)#

Vhttp2plato#stanford#eduarchivesfall8990entriestruthCcorrespondenceX#

Are'fus, Hubert O# (.//.)#Being'in'the'or$d: A commentary on ?eideggers eing

and %ime,5ivision I. ;ambridge, *ass#2 *I% Eress#

Heidegger, *artin (-./8/1 .//)# "What is metaph'sicsJ$ in Heidegger (.//), pp# :/C

..9#


18/25

&

5555# (-./01 ./0/).An Introduction to Metaphysics. %rans# Falph *anheim# Lew

Haven2 Nale Yniversit' Eress#

5555# (-./1 ./0)."om esen der ahrheit. 3ran!furt am *ain2 Pittorio

Blostermann#

5555# (-./01 ./=:).hat Is @a$$ed Thin%ing A Trans$ation o* Was Heisst

Aen!enJ %rans# D# ?lenn ?ra'# Lew Nor!2 Harper;ollinsEublishers#

5555# (-./=.1 .//)# "&n the essence of truth,$ fourth ed#, trans# Dohn 4allis, in

Heidegger (.//), pp# ..0C.:#

5555# (./=8)#Being and Time# %rans# Dohn *ac+uarrie Z Mdward Fobinson# Lew

Nor!2 Harper Z Fow#

5555# (-./=/1 ./@8)# 8n Time and being. %rans# Doan 4tambaugh# ;hicago2

Yniversit' of ;hicago press#

5555# (./@@)# The uestion concerning techno$ogy and other essays. %rans# William

Oovitt# Lew Nor!2 Harper Z Fow#

5555# (./@/)#iet/sche. "o$ume I: The i$$ to poer as art. %rans# Aavid 3arrell

Brell# Lew Nor!2 Harper Z Fow#

5555. (./:8)# The Basic -rob$ems o* phenomeno$ogy# Fev# Md# %rans# Glbert

Hofstadter# loomington, Ind#2 Indiana Yniversit' press#

5555. (./:0)#?istory o* the concept o* time: pro$egomena# %rans# %heodore Bisiel#

loomington, Ind#2 Indiana Yniversit' press#


19/25

*

5555. (.//)#Basic ritings# Fevised and expanded# Md# Aavid 3arrell Brell# 4an

3rancisco2 Harper4an3rancisco#

5555. (.//=)#Being and Time# %rans# Doan 4tambaugh# Glban', Lew Nor!2 4tate

Yniversit' of Lew Nor! press#

5555. (.///)# @ontributions to phi$osophy (*rom enoning). %rans# Earvis Mmad

and Benneth *al'# loomington and Indianapolis2 Indiana Yniversit' Eress#

5555. (Ynpublished)# @ontributions to phi$osophy (on the event). %rans# Fichard

Fojcewic7#

Hinti!!a, Daa!!o# (./=8)# ";ogito, Mrgo 4um2 Inference or EerformanceJ$The

-hi$osophica$ Cevie, Pol# @., Lo# ., pp# C8#

Husserl, Mdmund# (8998)#IdeenI [Ideen /u einer reinen -h#nomeno$ogie und

ph#nomeno$ogischen -hi$osophie: A$$gemeine in*0hrung in die reine -h#nomeno$ogie!4echste

Guflage# %\bingen2 Liema'er#

Doas, Hans# (.//)#-ragmatism and socia$ theory. Yniversit' of ;hicago Eress#

Baufmann, Walter, ed# (./0=)#9istentia$ism *rom 5ostoevs%y to Sartre.Lew Nor!2

World publishing#

*c*anus, Aenis# (.//=)# "Mrror, Hallucination and the ;oncept of >&ntolog' in the

Marl' Wor! of Heidegger#$-hi$osophy, Pol# @., Lo# 8@: (&ct# .//=), pp# 00C0@0#

Liet7sche, 3riedrich# (.//8)#cce ?omo: ?o one becomes hat one is. %rans# F# D#

Hollingdale# Introduction b' *ichael %anner# Oondon2 Eenguin#


20/25

(

Ehilipse, Herman# (899.)# "How Gre We to Interpret Heidegger]s &euvreJ G

*ethodological *anifesto#$-hi$osophy and -henomeno$ogica$ Cesearch, Pol# =, Lo# (Lov#

899.), pp# 0@C0:=#

Fort', Fichard# (.//.)#ssays on ?eidegger and others: -hi$osophica$ papers! Pol# 8#

;ambridge2 ;ambridge Yniversit' press#

Fussell, ertrand (./0/)# isdom o* the est. ?arden ;it', Lew Nor!2 Aoubleda'#

4chelling, 3# W# D# (-.:991 ./@:)# System o* transcendenta$ Idea$ism (DE==). %rans# Eeter

Heath# ;harlottesville2 Yniversit' press of Pirginia#

4halin, Amitri# (.//8)# Feview ofThe ?eidegger controversy: A @ritica$ Ceader! ed# b'

Fichard Wolin# The American Fourna$ o* Socio$ogy, Pol# /:, Lo# 8 (4ep# .//8), pp# 9/C..#

4heehan, %homas# (.///)# "*artin Heidegger,$ inA @ompanion to the -hi$osophers. Md#

Fobert O# Grrington# &xford2 lac!well, 8::C8/@#

4pigelberg Herbert#899.# The -henomeno$ogica$ movement:Martin ?eidegger (DEEG'

) as a phenomeno$ogist. vispir^press# http2vispir#h.#ruspig#htm

4tambaugh, Doan# (.//0)# "%he %urn#$ In;rom -henomeno$ogy to thought! errancy and

desire: ssays in honor o* i$$iam F. Cichardson!4# D# Aordrecht2 Bluwer, .//0, pp# 89/C8.8#


21/25

$


22/25

.ENN!TES

$. Hei-e""er -isZusses the !uryin")over Verschttung)o/ 3heno1ena a2so at S u. ZH. *6. I follow

in this paper *ac+uarrie Z Fobinsons convention of designating the pages of the later ?erman -Lieme'er1 editions b' the

prefix H#)

& . I say [Zon/usin"2y\ !eZause ti1e itse2/ is usua22y Zonsi-ere- a -i1ension# :ith 3ast# 3resent an-

/uture as# say# re"ions o/ that -i1ension. Ho:ever# Hei-e""er\s usa"e is not i"norant or s2o33y#

!ut reasone-] ^ti1e re3resente- as a 2ine an- 3ara1eter an- thus one)-i1ensiona2 is 1easure-

out in ter1s o/ nu1!ers. The -i1ensiona2ity o/ ti1e# thou"htasthe suZZession o/ the sequenZeo/ no:s# is !orro:e- /ro1 the re3resentation o/ three)-i1ensiona2 s3aZe.

^But 3rior to a22 Za2Zu2ation o/ ti1e an- in-e3en-ent o/ suZh Za2Zu2ation# :hat is "er1ane to

the ti1e)s3aZe o/ true ti1e Zonsists in the 1utua2 reaZhin" out an- o3enin" u3 o/ /uture# 3ast an-

3resent. AZZor-in"2y# :hat :e Za22 -i1ension an- -i1ensiona2ity in a :ay easi2y 1isZonstrue-#

!e2on"s to true ti1e an- to it a2one. Di1ensiona2ity Zonsists in a reaZhin" out that o3ens u3# in

:hiZh /utura2 a33roaZhin" !rin"s a!out :hat has !een# :hat has !een !rin"s a!out /utura2

a33roaZhin"# an- the reZi3roZa2 re2ation o/ !oth !rin"s a!out the o3enin" u3 o/ o3enness. Thou"ht

in ter1s o/ this three/o2- "ivin"# true ti1e 3roves to !e three)-i1ensiona2. Di1ension# :e re3eat#

is here thou"ht not on2y as the area o/ 3ossi!2e 1easure1ent# !ut rather as reaZhin" throu"hout#

as "ivin" an- o3enin" u3_ Hei-e""er `$969 $98 $()$%b. In the vie: o/ cona2- Po2ans;y

3ersona2 Zo11uniZation# &009b # this notion o/ three)-i1ensiona2 ti1e is 1o-e2e- on Aristot2e\s

!e2ie/ in the Zo132eteness o/ the nu1!er three as 1ani/este- !oth in the sequenZe !e"innin"#

1i--2e an- en- an- in the three -i1ensions o/ s3aZe see De caelo&6' ab.

*. I e132oy the ty3o"ra3hiZa2 -istinZtion !et:een te13ora2ity an- Te13ora2ity use- !y trans2ators

inZ2u-in" daZquarrie co!inson#A2!ert Ho/sta-ter an- Joan Sta1!au"h.

(6.Hei-e""er 3roZee-s to 1a;e -istinZtions a1on" the 1eanin"s o/ [a33earanZe\# :hiZhdaZquarrie an- co!inson ana2ye at H. &9 n $.


23/25

0. Thou"h Her1an Phi2i3se\s striZtures a"ainst Hei-e""er 3ara22e2 1y o:n# I Zannot en-orsethe1. He Zhar"es# ^Hei-e""er at 1any 32aZes uses Husser2\s rhetoriZ o/ o!+eZtivity. He says# /or

e4a132e# that in or-er to o!tain "enuine ;no:2e-"e# :e have to :or; out our ZonZe3tua2 struZture

[in ter1s o/ the thin"s the1se2ves\ _ Phi2i3se &00$# %'$b. This see1s un/air !oth to Husser2 an- to

Hei-e""er# sinZe Husser2\s Sachen are not instanZes o/ o!+eZtivity in the usua2 sense# an-

there/ore Hei-e""er is not 3ositin" an e4terna2 o!+eZt :hen he ur"es that Wissenschaft !e

"roun-e- in the1.

6 . Given the earnest :ran"2in" o/ Theaetetus an- Posterior analytics, the notion that there :as no

e3iste1o2o"y unti2 1o-ern ti1es is ^too a!sur- /or -isZussion_ this use/u2 3hrase is 3erha3s 1ost

assoZiate- :ith Sha:# !ut it "oes !aZ; at 2east as /ar as Danie2 fi2son `$'$6)$'9&b.

8. fe Zan see Au"ustine sti22 stru""2in" :ith the -istinZtion !et:een sha-o: an- nothin"ness in

one o/ his Zo11entaries on Genesis] ^So sha-o:s tenebraeb :ere on `the -ee3g. Butthere

:as not a!so2ute2y nothin"] there :as a Zertain unsha3e2iness informitasb :ithoutany /or1specieb_ Conf.$&.*b. At a 2ater 3erio-# :e /in- tenebra !ein" use- as a sin"u2ar noun 1eanin"

[sha-o:\ !y Bonaventure#Commentaria in uatuor !ibrosSententiarum,i!. II# Dist. II# Du!. II#

ces3. or the 2ater history o/ the -isZussion# see darZia . Co2ish $9'(.b

'. I insert this Zautionary Z2ause !eZause various o!servers# inZ2u-in" Hinti;;a $96&b# have

-ou!te- :hether the Co"ito# -es3ite its /or1# is tru2y an in/erenZe or is rather an utteranZe o/

another ;in-.

9 . Tho1as "ives Zre-it /or this -e/inition to IsaaZ Israe2i# !ut no suZh -e/inition has !een /oun- in

that :riter\s :or;s. So1e traZe the -e/inition !aZ; to Carnea-es Z. &$* j Z. $&' BCEbk see Davi-

&00%b.

$0. or Hei-e""er\s reservations a!out Weltanschauung in 3hi2oso3hy# see Hei-e""er $9' ()

$0b. A2so in the "eitr#ge Hei-e""er# un3u!2ishe-# &b :e have ^a22 :or2-vie: theories stan-


24/25

Zo132ete2y outsi-e o/ 3hi2oso3hy# /or they Zan e4ist on2y !y -enyin" that Beyn" is :orthy o/

question._ E1a- an- da2y Hei-e""er $999# (b trans2ate] Êvery 1anner o/ sZho2astiZ :or2-vie:

g._

$$$$. A ZonneZtion is 1a-e !et:een [as\ an- [inter3retation\ a2so at H. 6&.

$&$&. fe /in- in NietsZhe a thou"ht that is si1i2ar to an- 3erha3s the ori"ina2 o/ Hei-e""er\s]

Êrror 5 !e2ie/ in the i-ea2 5b is not !2in-ness# error is co$ar%ice_ &cce 'omo,/ore:or- l *#

NietsZhe $99&b.

$*. So# 1ore narro:2y# Au"ustine te22s us that the revo2t o/ the 1e1!ers is -ue to our 2ar"er

re!e22ion De Ci(itate DeiBoo; Im# $%)$6b.

$($*. Hei-e""er :as sti22 usin" Scheinin the e43osition o/ his o:n vie:s in Vom Wesen %er

Wahrheit,a 2eZture that has !een -ate- to $9*0 an- :as /irst 3u!2ishe- in $9(*. See Hei-e""er

`$9(* $9%(# l (. fe 1ay a2so note Hei-e""er\s use o/ Schein in his e43osition o/ NietsZhe

Hei-e""er $989# &$*)$'b# thou"h :e Zannot :ith Zertainty e4traZt /ro1 this -isZussion an

aZZount o/ Hei-e""er\s o:n vie:s.

$%$(. By [e4terna2 o!+eZt\ I 1ean o!+eZt ôutsi-e_ the 1in-# !oth :or-s [e4terna2\ an- [outsi-e\

!ein" inten-e- not 2itera22y s3atia22yb !ut 1eta3horiZa22y. It :ou2- !e -i//iZu2t even to /or1u2ate

the notion o/ ôutsi-e the 1in-_ in Hei-e""er\s ter1ino2o"y.

$6$%. Hans Joas asserts# :ithout s3eZi/iZ Zitation# În a 2eZture on Aristot2e in $9&$)& Hei-e""er

re/ers to 3ra"1atis1 in a 1anner :hiZh Zou2- Zertain2y !e -esZri!e- as sy13athetiZ_ Joas $99*#

$06b.

$8. corty# revie:in" the history o/ 3hi2oso3hy as a Zo1iZ 3er/or1anZe# Zo11ente- that ^:e

`3hi2oso3hers are 1a;in" ourse2ves una!2e to see thin"s :hiZh every!o-y e2se Zan see j thin"s

2i;e inZrease- or -eZrease- su//erin" j !y ZonvinZin" ourse2ves that these thin"s are [1ere

a33earanZes\ _ corty $99$# 8(b.


25/25

$'. PeirZe# o/ Zourse# :as so re3e22e- !y Ja1es\ ver sion o/ 3ra"1atis1 that he too; to Za22in" his

o:n -oZtrine [3ra"1atiZis1\k !ut sZho2ars are ri"ht to Z2assi/y thin;ers not aZZor-in" to the

3re/erenZe o/ those Z2assi/ie- !ut to the ZonvenienZe o/ the historian an- the en2i"hten1ent o/

rea-ers.

$9. I -o not a-o3t Hei-e""er\s o:n trans2ation o/ this verse# /oun- at `$9%( $96'# &(0)$b.

Documents

Up Against the Object