Ogni tanto era spuntato tra le righe del nostro blog, ma mancava ancora un intervento dedicato esclusivamente a Martin Heidegger. Personaggio un po' controverso per tanti motivi, Heidegger è sicuramente il filosofo che più di tutti ha attirato e attira ancora l'attenzione di larghe fette degli 'specialisti' di filosofia (accademici e non). Ovviamente non pretendiamo qui di inserirci nei dibattiti-fiume fra 'heideggeriani' e 'anti-heideggeriani' bensì, come nostro solito, confezionare un piccolo omaggio ai protagonisti della Filosofia, illustrando quelle questioni che possano solleticare maggiormente il vostro interesse.
Prima di affrontare il tema di oggi è necessaria una piccola premessa introduttiva all'opera presa in esame. "Being and Time" is not any philosophical treatise, not only for the fact that his compositional process has been interrupted (Heidegger wrote and published only one of the parties listed in the project work), but especially for the problem which builds on Heidegger's discourse: the question of being old and decayed. Lapsed due to the apparent inability of philosophy to reach a satisfactory result, because of the vagueness and the polysemy of the concept, that every philosopher has his own controversial definition. In the midst of this chaos emerges calm now that Heidegger, in 1927, wants to revive the debate on being, but from a revolutionary point of view than the tradition of Western metaphysics.
Heidegger in fact notes that, while we show ourselves to have a structural relationship with the be (given that we use as a verb-copula in even the most trivial debate daily), on the other we are inexplicably unable to answer the simple question "But what is that to be blessed?". And therein lies the rub according to Heidegger, that we wonder how on being and, therefore, how we look. The philosophers of all time have completely the wrong way, as they have tried to be like this if it were an object with which we can make contact and put it in the safe of our knowledge. Consequence of what: conceptual chaos, waste definitions, falling in the empty generality of the problem of being and metaphysics in general. So, to try to repair it all, Heidegger tries to tackle the problem from a different starting point: no longer dall'astrattezza of conceptual reflection, but just from what philosophy was considered 'lower' compared to the peak of his thought pure, that is the 'trivial' concreteness of everyday experience, that is the way we are every day among our peers where we spend almost all my life.
seem paradoxical to claim to be able to reach, perhaps the concept that assumes most of all a Research intimate and secluded, watching our way of being with others. But for Heidegger may not be otherwise: after all, how else can we know ourselves if not from our reactions to the events outside, towards others, toward nature and environment around us? It is a prerequisite for our existence, without which we would not have a way to exert our will, force, momentum. Our way of life is based, therefore, on being opened, turned to other than us, and therefore also that you can be totally taken, absorbed and stupefied by trivial and banal. This possibility, according to Heidegger, is based precisely the everyday, defined by the philosopher as alluvial-dispersion in the sphere of the "Yes" (already pointing at the lexical level the opposition with the ball of the authenticity, or the 'Self'). In this world is everyone is like the other, since the Si is none and, together, is all. But let's see what it is.
"using the means of public transport or communications, information services (newspapers) is like everyone else. This being-together completely dissolve the individual Dasein [the entity that we are, so named by Heid.] in the way of being "other", so that others fade away even more in their particularity and precision. In this state of irrelevance and the lack of distinction is pursuing his true dictatorship. There we spend and have fun as there is fun, we read, see and judge about literature and art as you see and you judge. We keep away from "bulk" as there is keeps away, there is "scandalous" that which is is scandalous. Si, which is not a being determined, but all (even if not as a sum), decreed to be the way of everyday life. "(" Being and Time, § 27).
But if we are daily subjected to this dictatorship "public" because it does not exempt it from there? Indeed, even before that, as we realize of all this? There is a possibility of escape from everyday dispersion, a sort of counter-movement to our structural tendency to decline in You? What exactly is this? So many questions overlap so we just have to read on Heidegger's (in the next intervention, however).
