Heidegger: Early Writings

Philosophy 382

Professor William Blattner

Topics:

1. Heidegger argues in §9 that Dasein's essence lies in its existence. On p. 78 he fills this out by indicating that to exist is to understand oneself. Put loosely, I suggested that this means that we are what we understand ourselves to be. Now, does this imply that we possess a strong version of free will, that we can choose to be whatever we want to be and that we are not determined by antecedent causes to choose in a certain way?
2. Heidegger defines the ready-to-hand as the sort of entity whose being is determined by its role in our practices. Thus, motor oil is for lubricating engines. But what if on some given day there is no chalk in ICC 210B and I use a spare can of motor oil to write on the board? Has the motor oil ceased to be motor oil?
3. In §1 Heidegger considers three objections to the suggestion that we raise anew the question of the meaning of being. Curiously, however, one objection he doesn't consider would go like this: The verb "to be" is the natural language form of the existential quanitifier. It doesn't add any meaning or content to a sentence, but merely posits the existence of the subject of the sentence. Thus, "being" or "to be" does not have any meaning beyond a purely logical or formal meaning, fully spelled out by first-order logic. [This is the sort of objection that Frege or Russell would offer to Heidegger's conception of being. It is also plausibly an updated version of Kant's critique of the ontological argument for the existence of God in The Critique of Pure Reason: "being is not a real predicate."] Evaluate this objection. How could Heidegger respond? Can he rebut the objection successfully?
4. In §12 Heidegger distinguishes facticity from factuality. In our own case, our physical characteristics (e.g., objective height) are aspects of our factuality, whereas our interpretations of our factual characteristics are aspects of our facticity (e.g., stature). Does this imply that a biological male can just interpret himself as a woman, that a biologically heavy person can interpret herself as thin, that a biologically tall person can interpret himself as short?
5. Heidegger writes, "Readiness-to-hand is the way in which entities as they are 'in themselves' are defined ontologico-categorially. Yet only by reason of something present-at-hand, 'is there' anything ready-to-hand. Does it follow, however, granting this thesis for the nonce, that readiness-to-hand is ontologically founded upon presence-at-hand?" (p. 101). He appears to say that equipment is ready-to-hand in itself, yet that without anything present-at-hand, there would not be anything ready-to-hand. Can both of these claims be true? Has Heidegger contradicted himself?
6. "What is decisive is not to get out of the circle [of understanding] but to come into it in the right way" (B&T, p. 195).  Is Heidegger entitled to talk about "right" and "wrong" ways of coming into the circle of understanding?  What might this distinction be, and is it consistent with the very idea that understanding is circular? 
7. Design your own topic. In order to do this, you must formulate a clear question and get my approval by my office hours on October 19^th. In order to get my approval by the 19^th, it would be wise to send me the question at least several days before then (by email or in person), so that I can help you tighten it up.

Some guidelines:

1. I assume that anyone eligible to enroll in this course knows how to write an argumentative paper. That means at a minimum that your paper will be governed by a thesis that it aims to prove, and that it will test this thesis by considering (and rebutting) challenging objections. Only one such objection is really necessary, but I do not limit you to merely one. Do not, in any case, spread your efforts too thin by considering a series of objections, none of which is well enough developed to be challenging.
2. Although I do not directly grade your prose style, effective prose is important in any piece of writing, and ineffective prose is a positive obstacle. In general, I recommend Strunk and White's Elements of Style as a guide to clear prose. Whatever you do, do not imitate Heidegger's prose style!!!!
3. You must give complete bibliographical citations at least in footnotes or endnotes (you may use either). A separate bibliography at the end of your paper is not required.
4. A note on page lengths: I specify page lengths in order to convey the size of the project, not to lay down a rigid limit. So, if you turn in four pages or eight, I will not penalize you as such. Please don't give me fifteen pages for this paper, though!

Late Papers:

• Unexcused late papers will be graded down one grade step (e.g., B+ to B) per two business days late (Saturday & Sunday count as one business day together).  Please discuss legitimate excuses with me as early as possible, and consult my blurb on good excuses.  Having to take midterms on the same day or having several assignments from multiple classes due at the same time are not legitimate excuses.