I can't remember if I provided this link before. I did a quick link and it doesn't look like I have. It's a link to a paper on the relationship between space and time in the latter Heidegger. (Mainly of Time and Being which I have discussed before) It is "Spatiality, Temporality, and the Problem of Foundation in Being and Time" by Yoko Arisaka. It's very well worth reading.
Clark, that was a really interesting paper. Thank you for linking it. I wonder if you've read much Merleau-Ponty (I may have asked this before). He is sort of my Pierce (i.e., the thinker that I go back to most often when I'm considering philosophical issues). The discussion of Heidegger's concept of space reminded me of his discussion of space and similar issues in The Visible and the Invisible.
BTW - you somehow put my name in the above, whoever you are. (Possibly a bug in my script. I may have "Clark" as a default somewhere for empty fields) Regarding Merleau-Ponty, I have to confess that I've long been wanting to read more of him. He's definitely on the list. But its the old story - far more to read than one has time for... I do know he did a lot on being-in-the-world as being-in-this-body-in-the-world. i.e. focusing in on the role of the body in ways Heidegger didn't address until towards the end of his life. Even then I think there are still many questions that even Merleau-Ponty didn't address, which is partially why I enjoy reading Mixing Memory's posts on cognitive science.
The interesting thing about Heidegger, as the above article addresses, is that he moves from considering temporality and other things through that into considering spatiality. Yet in certain interesting ways the analysis is very similar. I think that has some interesting implications, even if many who love Div I of Being and Time talk rather disapprovingly of Div II. (i.e. Dreyfus among others)
I think that the consideration of space and time, especially in light of physical theories of various stripes, is all too neglected in Continental Thought. Merleau-Ponty certainly heads in that direction though, making use of a lot of the scientific thought available to him at the time. So does Ricoeur for that matter. However both tend to focus in on psychology or neurology and neglect physics which I think has a lot to say here. I suspect this may be due to seeing physics as only discussing the present-at-hand. However I'm not sure that is always a fair characterization of physics. After all the role of the observer is of necessity part and parcel of both quantum mechanics and relativity. Scientists often ignore it, but it is always "there" in the theory.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble