登录站点

用户名

密码

Hermeneutic horizontal of Temporality and Historical to the Being problem

1已有 63 次阅读2011-05-17 17:11

Hermeneutic horizontal of Temporality and Historical to the Being problem

is a main representative theory of Heidegger. In this book, Heidegger did a large job to raise some question about “Be/Being” from our common langue. He brought out some topic to find out the answer of the problem of “Being” and its significance in hermeneutic. His proof method, mostly is from the Husserl and Dilthey’s “Phenomenological-Hermeneutical”. Although the problem of “Being” (Seinsfrage) has still no final answer, it’s very difficult, but today is still necessary to centers on the problems of “Being”(Seinsfrage) by Heidegger. The important of the “Being” interpretation was closely related to three basic concepts: the most universal concept for “Being”; “Being” is hard to define; “Being” is self-evident.

Significance of Being problem

Aristotles ever considered that: No matter how know about what from a Being(Seiende), the understanding should be always based on some understanding conscious perception. But the universality “Being”(Sein) is not like a generality in kinds. Whether a Being(Seiende) is according to kinds and properties to distinguish and connect, then “Being”(Sein) should not only be a highest definition to “a being”(das Seiende). Its universality property is beyond every kinds of the worlds. How come the “Being” concept is hard to define was inferred by this. We cannot understand the “Being” like “a Being”. No matter “a Being” was belongs to “Being”, but they are not the same criterion. “Being” cannot define by a high or low level, it’s not a things like “a being”(das Seiende). The traditional logical definition method can define “a being” in some way, but it’s not good to define or interpret “Being”. In all we know in the worlds and in all what we can be represent, every relevant activity with a being, almost can use the “Being/Be”. It’s a common sense language in our live. For the being objects which was in being state, our usual live activity was always in this state. So the “Being” is like a self-evident thing. Kant ever said that, only the thing which is self-evident can be judgment by usual pure reason – this should be an always important subject on hermeneutic and analyze. Especially on the research of “Being ontology”, although it’s still no clearly answer and all in a jumble, but it's a significant work of hermeneutic.

Structure of Being problem

Now we should know that the subject for “Being” and “a Being” interpretation is difficulty. Guidance as appropriate to undertake over the clues, like the presence of most of this has the structure of thought “Being” on certain topics from a “Being” of insight. According to object's self-being way, from the essential, is to close touch with other being, and it means, to interpret the problem of “being” can be understand as to know the being object from the worlds. When philosophers face to the problem of “Being”(Seinsfrage), firstly is clear to know the first be asked an object of “a Being”(das Seiende), to represent its right criterion. Usually, a wrong comment would be come out about the high priority level of “Being” and “a Being”. It's talking about someone maybe considering “a Being” object(Seienden) might be always in a “being” or “being ontology” states. To these two states, “a Being” object should directly control. But actually, this status of “a being” object is very closely, and even as on the being ontology, this concept is at the most distant. And for this kind of thinking in “Being”, is in a mostly and closely interpretation, which is before the “Being ontology”.

Based on the most distant of “Being ontology” and closely of “a Being” object (Seienden), we can comprehend the problem of “Being” into multiple hermeneutic dimensions, such as: Philosophy, psychology, anthropology, ethics, politics, poetry, biography, historical and ect. In order to each various ways and with different scale understanding cycle, for all the behaviors should affect the hermeneutic possibility and its own rise and fall. The cycle should be continuing. Maybe the interpretation of “being” is not totally the same with “being ontology”, but they also not mutual repulsion. Suppose the philosophical understanding is possibility and necessity, the interpretation of “being ontology” is need to be analyzed. Only when we clearly follow the direction of the problem of “Being”, in order to fully sort out the basic structure so far in the analysis things that make sense. It's not permit to plus any fictitious to “a Being” side between “Being” and reality concept. And it's also not permit to plus any categories of being which is without inspection. These kinds concept is the first request for the interpretation and analysis work.

Time is be a horizon of Being

The work is the mainly mission to solve the problem of “Being” to the end from beginning. By the initial interpretation and analysis work is not fully complete, it did not to interpret the significance of “Being”. To do a better work on this, it needs more techniques things. Then, an important concept – temporality(Zeitlichkeit) was come out in Heidegger's philosophy.

The temporality(Zeitlichkeit) was good to proof the problem of “Being”, but it was still not totally solve the problem, just provide a good condition to interpret and proof. To understand the hidden and not been apparent in the interpretation of such a thing was the occasion of the departure from the vision, that was time. We have put the time onto the problem of “Being”, that there was in the vision of all understanding and interpretation. And the time must be interpreted to the primitive understanding in the “Being” of the horizon. Before this, it should be clear the concept of time between Heidegger's and common parlance. It also needs to clear that the traditional concepts of time and comprehension of time was derived from the temporality. And how came with that.

For a long time, “Time” was a criterion of “Being ontology” or a criterion of “a Being”(Seienden) states for distinguishes in different horizon. People were used to distinguish the concept of “a Being”(das Seiende) from “temporality” and “non- temporality”. The “temporality” concept is used be as the “in the time”, time is an important criterion to distinguish in the “Being” horizon. Time, how could be this feature and criterion that in the “Being ontology”? A common sense on time, which is within grasp of the environmental horizon, “Time” just has this primitive feature like a “self-evident”. And specially, when answer and solve the problem of “Being”, on the center of all “Being” problems, are rooted to the correct formulation to show a correct interpretation in time phenomenon and how it is rooted in the phenomenon of the time. If we can correctly understand the “Being” by time, actually we must have a limitation in time dimension to understand each different evolutionary process. Then we could be easy to understand the “Being” is not only a property to “a Being” object which was be in the time. Therefore, “temporality” is not only equal to “Being in the time”. The thing of “non-temporality” and “beyond in time” were both “temporality”, and seems not against with any “a Being in the time”(Dasein).

It’s not only because the terms “temporality” is covered by some philosophical langue, it should be has more positive meaning. Therefore, we would from the provisions and original meaning of “Being” and the existence material and style to regular in a “temporality” status, then to interpret or explain the basis for the problem of “Being” is includes a job which was going to clear a being time state. It must be clear to catch the main meaning of “Being” by time. So that time should be positive to solve the “Being” problems. Assume the answer of “Being” problem is like this for our mainly research, then the problem we could easily conclude like: today’s “Being ontology” has a particular being method, this kind of being has a destination to ask, discover and reject. They are necessarily come to our new horizon, just like this, we should be possibly to make a clear and fully answer for interpretation to the problem of “Being”.

Historical horizon (Geschichtlichkeit) of Being hermeneutic

It is in a right scope of solution to take a historical work in interpretation of “Being” problem. Heidegger was trying to clarify the problem in essence, in his theory framework of interpreting “Being” problem, historical principle can has a decisive significance. All the researches for “a Being”(Das Seiende) in the present are the same level, however the “temporality” of “Being” object is a condition as a possible historic being. The interpretation work of historical “Being ontology” was not to do in negative with past, it is focus on “Today” (present), it should focus on the history of the “Being ontology” for the dominant approach, and it has a positive purpose. It means a historic was built out from history of “Being” in present. In its actual or nature "Being", as it ever “Being" and it is already as an existed "things". Everything, always had its existed past, it also is a properties which accompanied by the past history.

To describe and represent the “Being” concept like this, the interpretation work is hard to avoid a negative significance from traditional interpretation, it’s not our purpose. We need to represent each of positive significance in the hermeneutic of “Being”. From the historical idea of “Being” problem, the history how come can be a way to “Being” of present, just because “a Being” was based on its own historical formulation to develop. Historical is a feature that is in the “Being”. In general, the “Being” of present would be on going, which awards to the future, during in this progress, its “Being” states is the past. The hermeneutic, interpretation of “Being”, was following that states which is historical, to push, or to evolve “a Being” (das Seiende) growing up. It’s like a hermeneutic cycle what the present states were always be comprehend itself. In this process, the comprehension would expand and adjust its all kinds of possibility. And, maybe the “Being” of present has already comprehend its own all kinds of possibility, then it should focus on a essence historical questions. To quest the significance of “Being” that is to quest its own history. Whether it want to have a good understand on the problem of “Being”, it need to follow this rules and it’s also the best way, which is the beginning from the “temporality” and “historical”.

The problem has not done

So far, the mission of ”Being” hermeneutic is more clearly: the problem of “Being” is the main key, then integrate the “temporality” and “historical” feature to interpret some pure experience. That means: Time must be a historical horizon for the “Being” hermeneutic.

Heidegger considered, this concept for the solution of “Being” problem solution needs a new scientific historian, he even to criticize the methodology of contemporary history. In his mind, peoples must always be aware of the limited of human existence to take the problem into a new way. But in , Heidegger seems did not finish his job for the problem of “Being” in hermeneutic. He further considering a complex relationship among “temporality” and “historical” with a concept of “Time”, and raise a question or a new way between “Time” and “Being”. Just a begin? Or just his choice of way for the problem.

Reference book

[1] M. Heidegger, Being and Time, trans., By John Macqurrie & Edward Robinson

[2] H.G Gadamer, Truth and Method, Trans., by Joel Weinsheimer & Donald G. Marshall

[3] H.G.Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Trans., by David E. Linge

[4] 陈嘉映, 《海德格尔哲学概论》

[5] 柯小刚, 《海德格尔与黑格尔-时间思想比较研究》

[6] 郭晓明, 《论逻辑哲学的两个基本问题 – 以海德格尔的存在哲学为视觉》

[7] 黄裕生,《时间与永恒 - 论海德格尔中哲学的时间问题》

[8] 帕特里夏·奥坦博德·约翰逊, 《海德格尔之时间性》,林丹译

[9] 约瑟夫·科克尔曼斯, 《海德格尔的存在与时间- 对作为基本存在论的此在的分析》,陈小文,李超杰,刘宗申译

[10] 孙周兴编:《海德格尔选集》(上+下)

[11] 孙周兴,《海德格尔存在哲学》

[12] 王恒, 《“时间与存在” ──后期海德格尔的时间性疏论》

分享 举报

发表评论 评论 (0 个评论)