A Critical Evaluation Of Martin Heidegger�S Concept Of Being

A Critical Evaluation Of Martin Heidegger�S Concept Of Being 

Abstract

The central focus of this work is to critically estimate Heidegger’s conception of being and other affiliated issues. Being has been a veritably interesting issue that has held proponents spell bound over the times. Proponents throughout the periods have tried to give it their own interpretation grounded on the way they’ve conceived it. Heidegger, in response to the problem of being, arose to develop a largely respectable interpretation of what he conceives as being. Whether he succeeded would be an issue that would be treated in this design.

Table Of Content

Pipe Runner———————— i

Instrument———————- ii

Fidelity———————– iii

Acknowledgements——————— iv

Abstract————————- vi

Table of Contents———————- vii

CHAPTER ONE General preface

Background of the study—————- 1

Statement of problem—————– 3

Purpose of study—————– 4

Significance of study—————– 4

compass of study——————- 5

Methodology——————– 6

Literature Review—————— 6

Endnotes———————- 9

CHAPTER TWO Heidegger in Historicity

Life and Work——————– 10

Influences——————— 12

General conception of Being————— 13

Endnotes——— 20

CHAPTER THREE Heidegger on Being

The ontological error of western gospel 22

Heidegger’s abecedarian ontology—– 23

Being and beings——– 24

Being and Time——– 27

Why is there commodity rather than nothing?—- 31

The significance of positive question—- 34

Authentic and fake life—— 36

Endnotes——— 39

CHAPTER FOUR Evaluation and Conclusion

The applicability of Being in Heidegger’s allowed —- 41

A notice on Heidegger( graces and faults)— 44

The proper generality of Being——- 46

Evaluation——— 47

Conclusions——— 48

Endnotes——— 49

Bibliography——— 50

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The central part of theories is ontology; study of Being. The word ontology derives from the Greek word ‘ On ’( in the plural ‘ onta ’), which is the present participle of ‘ einai ’, the verb ‘ to be ’.( Kenny 2010160).

The author of ontology was Parmenides and he defined it by placing the definite composition “ to ” in front of the participle ‘ on ’. ‘ To on ’, literally ‘ the being ’, on the model of the living; means All that’s. it is customary, argues Kenny( 2010160), to restate the expression into English as( Being) with an original capital. Without a capital, the English word ‘ being ’ has in gospel two senses or uses, one corresponding to the Greek participle and one to Greek infinitive. A being, we can say, using the participle is an existent that is, whereas being( using the verbal noun) is, as it were, what any individual being is engaged in. The summation of existent being makes up being.

For Parmenides ‘ Being is, andnon-being is not, for Heraclitus Being is getting, for Plato, Being live in the world of ‘ transcendental form ’. For Aristotle, it’s the study of anything that is, whether material or immaterial. For Thomas Aquinas, it refers to all that’s and their ultimate support( ultimate principle). For some contemporary thinkers, being is abstract and refers to nothing concrete. It’s thus important to point out that the entire metaphysical trip is that of trying to understand being in this trouble to illustrate being, Heidegger the great German champion isn’t left out.

The problem which Heidegger sets out to probe isn’t the problem of man but the problem of Being. He feels passionately that it’s necessary to translate this ancient problem which has been neglected.

Do we in our own time have answer to the question of what we really mean by the word ‘ being ’? Not at each! So it’s fitting that we should raise a new question of the meaning being

Our end in the following composition is to work out the question of the meaning of being and to do so rightly( Heidegger 1962 80).

Martin Heidegger entered into the metaphysical world with the end of correcting what he calls the “ Ontological error of western gospel ”. According to Ireogbu( 1995214), on reading historically back, still, Heidegger asserts

This in that its literal trip, commodity has gone wrong with theories. It has missed that its way in terms of the primary object of that its occupation Being.

But theories in the process forgot the most abecedarian subject of its inquiry. The “ Sein, “ Ens ”, Being ”, or “ To be ”, of the different situations of being. ‘ The forgotten Being then’s the difference between Being and beings, else called “ Ontological difference ”.

Heidegger’s query was that the abecedarian ontological question on Being has been forgotten and so he set out on a reformation of being. originally, he started by posing the abecedarian ontological questions.

What’s Being? Why is there being rather than nothing?( Heidegger, 196288) whether Heidegger succeeded in his hunt is one that we will discover as we progress with this design. This design is thus a critical attempt to probe into the “ onto- ensigns ” of Being and at the same time to correct the miscalculations of his forerunners

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A fact that should be taken into consideration is that Being itself is veiled which makes an accurate difocation of it to be veritably delicate.

The first problem we shall encounter then’s that of articulating the nature of commodity that’s veiled or hidden. This according to Heidegger makes the obliviousness of being a part of its reality. The alternate problem is Heidegger’s attempt to decide the notion of Being from the notion of Dasien( Man). Metaphysically the conception of Being is previous to the conception of man. It becomes problematic to attempt to draw the conception of Being from that of man. In fact the conception of man is always dependent on a particular conception of Being. It’s the steed that should draw the wain and not the other way round.

The last problem that will face us in this design is that Heidegger’s proposition of Being is a metaphysical inversion of religion. Not only is Heidegger purposely silent on the God question, his preponderant use ofpre-Socratic textbook is denounced by Levinas asanti-scripture.( Ireogbu, 1995 23).

PURPOSE OF STUDY

Heidegger lashed out at his forerunners and indicted them of obliviousness of Being. Our purpose then’s to critically assess the reasons behind Heidegger’s blameworthiness and also see whether he succeeded in reconstructing Being appreciatively.

Further more, the question of Being has been veritably fugitive and delicate to grasp. important as the history of gospel is riddled with bad answers that need requestioning. What’s Being? Remains a question to be now and again paraphrased in new vocabularies, given new circumstances. It’s thus our intention to rethink and rethink old questions within the environment of contemporary gests . The contemporary experience seems to be grounded on concrete issues and questions and not on abstract realities like Being andnon-Being.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The significance or applicability or significance of this design can not beover-emphasized “ Being as Ireogbu articulates( 1995 60) ” is the primum notum( The first to be known) and the per se notum( The most tone-apparent) “ reality of the mortal intellect ” Heidegger’s giant donation to the question of Being is irrefutable. His profound analysis of ‘ Dasien ’ is refreshingly revealing.

The question he supposed “ why is there anything rather of nothing ”? Is one of the most important questions that face man in the contemporary period? A world where Being is neglected would not be a meaningful world. It’s in fact insolvable to neglect it as Being speaks for itself. This design is thus contributing to the knowledge in the senses that we want to base meaning eventually, we want to understand Being in the environment of history, present and unborn with a view towards man’s ontologicalend.However, also it follows that we should seek to understand Being exhaustively, If as Heidegger argues that a man is a “ Being unto death ” and that death brings fulfillment rather of destruction.

compass OF STUDY

This work should be limited in compass to a critical evaluation of Heideggerian conception of Being. The work divides itself into four( 4) chapter’s methodology.

Chapter One( 1) deals with scientific methodology. Chapter Two( 2) examines Heidegger’s historicity. Chapter Three( 3) examines Heidegger’s conception of Being. Chapter four( 4) which is the last chapter focuses on graces and faults of Heidegger’s workshopetc.

METHODOLOGY

principally, we’d be combining two styles in this thesis. First is the logical system which will enable us reflect totally, coherently, constantly, logically and else. If Being is veiled it’s only through analyses that its hiddeness shall be unveiled.

Secondly, we shall be employing the critical system. This alternate system shall enable us to examine the strength and weakness of Being as a conception.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The first book under review then’s named Heidegger A Beginner’s Guide, penned by Michael Watts, published at Oxon by Hodder and Stroughton press Ltd in 2007. The author’s instructional textbook explores the following.

Heidegger’s background and the times he lived.

The central ideas of Heidegger’s work in simple terms.

Heidegger’s influence on ecology, art and literature and incipiently, the continuing significance of Heidegger to gospel and contemporary study. The coming work to be reviewed then’s named A Commentary On Heidegger’s Being And Time, written by Michael Gelven, published by Northern Illinois- university press, 1989. For the author, Heidegger equiperates Being with Time( Zein und Zeit). For him, actuality within time refers to our abecedarian way of Being which contemporaneously spans and is constituted by the three confines of time- history, present and unborn. The third book under review is named The Cambridge Companion To Heidegger, edited by Christian Guignon and published by Cambridge university press, 1996. The central theme of this companion is abecedarian ontology. By this Heidegger understands the critical or primary step of first studying the mortal being before one also pursues the disquisition of the ‘ sein ’. It’s the primary logical of the Dasien which is the sole focus where the Being- question is posed and dived .

The fourth book to be reviewed then’s penned by Pantaleon Iroegbu named Metaphysics The Kpim Of Philosophy, published in Owerri in 1995 by transnational university press Ltd. The author, contend then that Being is the abecedarian bedrock of any theories. For Ireogbu, Being is andnon-beings is not. Being is englobing and encompassing. It signifies the summation of reality. He especially devoted chapter 17 of this work to explaining, assaying and assessing Heidegger ontological difference. For Heidegger, the question of Being has moment been forgotten, the challenge thus, and that’s Heidegger’s metaphysical design is that the question of the meaning of Being must bere-formulated,

The coming book under review is named The Problem Of Metaphysics, penned by Fredrick Sontag, published in Pennsylvania by chandler publishing company in 1970. According to the author, gospel, in so far as it is, is a hunt for first principles is the introductory supposition implicit in any question in theories. It teaches us a radical form of questioning. In this sense, “ Metaphysics is simply introductory of gospel ”. The hunt for and the questioning of first principles. The author contend then that theories deals with problems which themselves involves indeed more abecedarian problems, and the exasperation involves in this delicate enterprise comes from an unprejudiced desire simply to settle a question without first reformulating and censuring the question itself. One of these introductory metaphysical problem is that of the true meaning of Being. Chapter six( 6) of this book centers on the problem of being as Heidegger encountered it when he varied being withnon-being.

The last book under review then’s named Delimitations, Phenomenology And The End Of Metaphysics, penned by John Salles, published by Indiana university press in 1986. Chapter seven of this book is devoted to the origins of Heidegger’s study and the questions of Being. The author argues that the literal origins of Heidegger’s studies in the defined sense specified are therefore constituted by Husserlian phenomenology and Greek ontology. still, the basics question is “ How is it that Being is what remains in study in the appeal to the effects themselves? How is it that a radical- phenomenology must come ontology? ”

WORKS CITED

Gelven, Michael,( 1989), A Commentary On Heidegger’s Being And Time,( Illonis Nothern Illonis University Press.

Guignon, Christian,( 1995), The Cambridge University Companion To Heidegger, Cambridge Cambridge University PressLtd.

Iroegbu, Pantaleon,( 1995), Metaphysics The Kpim Of Phylosophy, Owerri International University Pressltd.

Heidegger, Martin,( 1962), Being And Time,( trans) by John Macquarrie, Oxford Blackwell Publishers.

Kenny, Anthony( 2010), A New History Of Western Philosophy, Oxford Clarendon Press.

Salles, John,( 1986), Delimitations Phenomenology And The End Of Metaphysics, Indianapolis Indiana University Press.

Sontag, Fredrick,( 1970), Problems Of Metaphysics, Pensylavania A Chandler Series.

Watts, Martin,( 2007), Heidegger A Beginner’s companion, Oxon Hodder and Stoughton Press.