The Big Shift on the Continent

2009; update May 2012

M. L. Dickson

Cartesian approach: 1600 - 1930 ; Heideggerian : 1930 onwards (& existential) Martin Heidegger: 1889 - 1976 Famous German Philosopher

The Cartesian position focuses on separating me from the world. The Heideggerian position focuses on showing how me and the world are joined, and can never be separated . The Cartesian position presupposes that I can be separated from the world, and then the BIG QUESTION is: How do I Know that I can bridge the gap to the world and reality? For the Cartesian, the Big Question becomes one of Epistemology . However, the Heideggerian position presupposes that I cannot be separated from the world as I do my investigations, and therefore what I know arises from examining me and the world taken together. After all, I am part of reality. What right does Descartes have to say that there is an ontological duality ? What if Descartes is wrong in saying that MIND is fundamentally different to MATTER , and can exist without it? What if MIND and MATTER are fundamentally joined ? This would mean that I cannot investigate MIND without investigating MATTER at the same time. The BIG QUESTION now (for Heidegger)is: What is the world or reality like that I see? The Big Question becomes one of Metaphysics .. i.e. of what does reality consist? What is existence or Being all about? * Lets look briefly at each of these two positions again: the Cartesian position, and then the Heideggerian position.

1 . The rise of Subjectivity

A. The Cartesian Spectator
Subjectivity at the Centre
It is important to note that when Descartes introduced the idea that the certain foundation of knowledge was the concept of "I exist" , he put philosophy on a new course altogether: he had introduced the subjective (i.e. the "I".. my consciousness of my self-existence) as the foundation of knowledge. This is known as the Cartesian Subject or Cartesian Spectator who first becomes aware of himself, and then finds some way to examine the world and to know it.

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

(i.e. the opposite of the Cartesian spectator.. Here we see Man and the world as a unity)

Privileged Subjectivity abandoned

Heidegger placed man in the world... and in fact joined them together.. to discover "me" I must discover the world.. and vice versa. He attacked the Cartesian subjectivity... and brought in a new type of subjectivity.. one that was linked to the very world in which I live. He called this view of man: Dasein. Dasein means "being there" (Da=there + Sein =being; cf Heideggers book : Sein und Zeit i.e Being and Time); Dasein has the net meaning of "existence" which is an existence so linked to the world that you cannot attempt to cut it off and from a subjective version of it. That is why Heidegger chose this terminology he knew that the ordinary word man carried with it Cartesian overtones, so he had to invent a new word. Heidegger writes: " Self and World belong together in the single entity called Dasein. Self and World are not 2 beings, like subject and object, instead self and world are the basic determination of Dasein in the unity of the structure of being-in-the-world " (From: Cambridge Companion Heidegger p13) The hyphens that you see in the phrase "being-in-the-world" are there to show inseparability. * This notion of man-and-world-together launched existentialism. One of the pillars of Existentialism is this Anti-Cartesian approach to self and to reality. Merleau-Ponty (1907- 1961): " The world is wholly inside me, and I am wholly outside myself" (Cooper Existentialism. p8) He means that the world (i.e. reality) and human existence are only intelligible in terms of one another. (Merleau-Ponty (1907- 1961)..first name : Maurice, French, Co-founder with Sartre of Existential philosophy sourced from Oxford Comp to Philos)

2. Philosophy became Subject Centered from Descartes onwards.

A. The Cartesian Spectator
Subject at the Centre
Virtually all the philosophers up till Heidegger subscribed to this view of the spectator who was at the centre and had to be understood first before . So, from 1600 to 1930 philosophers explored the nature of the "I": what exactly was the "I" , and how did it know things? The musical Sound of Music: "A thing called I" ... " A crazy planet full of crazy people .. " is somersaulting all around the sun, . And every time it does another somersault, Another day is done. "... youre a fool if you worry over anything but little No1" This song picks up on German/Swiss thinking prior to the 2nd WW when the Cartesian "I" reached its peak in Husserl, Heidegger's professor. (Aside: Heidegger initially accepted Husserls philosophy, but then abandoned it and later betrayed Husserl to the Nazi government. They removed Husserl, and appointed Heidegger as professor in Husserls place. ) So we can say that philosophy in this period 1600 to 1930 was pre-occupied with the Cartesian Subject Remember, "SUBJECT" means "subjectivity" , not "Subject = a study of something , like geography.

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

Subject De-centered
Whereas the Cartesian position put the Knowing Subject at the centre, Heidegger de-centered the subject .. it was not at the centre any more. And Heidegger picked up on a notion first put forward by a thinker called Brentano. The notion is that if you are conscious, you are always conscious of something. This notion has a name: INTENTIONALITY The Cartesian view of consciousness was linked to the Knowing Subject who was isolated from the world and reality. For the Cartesian, the world and reality had to be described using IDEAS.. This was true for Descartes, Locke, Hume... all the way up to the 1930's. Heidegger broke with this trend, and said that man is in-the-world. And his consciousness is of things in reality. If you engage in an act of consciousness or thinking, your thinking is directed to something.. to some object. Philosophers say: Your thinking intends some object. (Cooper: Existentialism: p44) This view of our conscious life suited the notion that man-is-in-the-world. What we are conscious of is not our existence shaved off from external reality, or distanced from it (Locke), but instead engaged in it. Our consciousness is about the reality we are in, and so we must examine reality in the same way that we are conscious of it viz. as a totality. Me+Reality as a unit or as it is sometimes called a Referential Totality (Cf: Sartres reaction when he first heard about intentionality went pale - Cooper Existentialism p47)

3. Epistemology: The question of Foundationalism .

A. The Cartesian Spectator
Foundationalism
Foundationalism is the belief that all knowledge can be built up from certain foundations. To be more precise, foundationalism views all knowledge as a two-tiered structure made up of a foundation and on top of that the superstructure. The foundation consists of knowledge that is non-inferential i.e. not derivable from anything else and therefore basic. Aristotle promoted this view, and so did Descartes and it is still popular among philosophers today. (For more: See Rockmore: p43) John Cottingham writes (CDofP under Descartes): Descartes in a celebrated simile likened the whole of Philos to a tree: the roots are metaphysics, the trunk physics, and the branches are the various sciences (incl medicine, mechanics and morals). Notice from this analogy 3 important aspects of Cartesianism: (i) the essential unity of knowledge.. by contrast Aristotle had made each science completely separate each with its own method etc. Note how in Cartesianism, Philosophy (and theology) and Science are part of a unified knowledge (ii) philosophy produces fruits just like the tree does, and you gather them, said Descartes, not from the roots but from the ends of the branches from the practical sciences. (iii) foundationalism the view that knowledge must be constructed from the bottom up, and that nothing can be taken as established until we have gone back to first principles. 2

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

Anti-Foundationalism
Heidegger and the Existentialists obviously were anti-Foundational: i.e. knowledge is not built up on certain foundations. Instead, knowledge is built up via an inter-related web. Remember that Descartes started something everyone else tried to follow: It was an attempt to establish a "thinking I" , a "Knowing Subject" and then derive some foundational precepts upon which all knowledge could be built. But Heidegger and the Existentialists refused the priority of the Knowing Subject. The result: There was no place to lay foundations. You have to encounter the world and encounter yourself, and build up knowledge as you go along. There is no privileged basis or foundation. An early Anti-foundationalist was Otto Neurath 1882-1945, and his illustration of knowledge is now know as Neurath's boat: " We are like sailors who have to rebuild their ship on the open sea without ever being able to dismantle it in a dry-dock, and then reconstruct it from the best components" (Oxford Comp to Philos "Boat, Neurath) Neurath is saying that epistemology cannot be pictured as a building with foundations, but an assembly that is constructed out of bits that float together. No bit is the foundation of the other bits or logically able to have a prior position. (Me: One wonders whether this illustration can hold any water! Building a ship at sea will require some foundations, otherwise it will be impossible to accomplish. And the bigger problem is that the floating ship-builder has in her mind an idea of a ship of the kind which can only be built in a dry-dock. )

4. Epistemology & the thinking self.

A. The Cartesian Spectator
Cartesian thinking produced a static situation as far as epistemology is concerned - a Knowing Subject who then goes on to analyse the world that he sees. The rules of the game of knowledge do not change because they are anchored in a kind of Platonic bedrock. As time goes by for the individual (and indeed for all of society), the structure of knowledge and its rules will remain unaltered and stable because at its root is the indubitable I think therefore I am . And of course, dont forget that in the Cartesian system this is all linked in with Gods indubitable existence and His control of His creation.

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

Epistemology and the thinking self both vanish
This means that idea of a thinking self which can exist on its own, disappears. And with it, epistemology disappears as far as Heidegger and others are concerned. Cartesian thinking produced a static situation.. a Knowing Subject who then goes on to analyse the world that he sees. Heidegger's view takes a different line. If I-am-in-the-world, then it will take time to discover what life is all about and what knowledge is all about. There are no given rules about knowledge, and when any are discovered, they may change with time as I move through time. My being-in-the-world, my existence, is not the detached, spectator who is a static observer. Instead, my being-in-the-world is dynamic.. I am in a process. In fact, I am never me, because I am always moving on.. and becoming. I am not what I am. Heidegger wrote: Only in dying can I to some extent say absolutely I am (History of Concept of Time 1985 p318 Hence Heidegger's book: Being and Time . Time is actually part of what Dasein is! As time moves on, I discover what the world is and who I am. But time is not a thing. It is actually part of Daseins existence i.e. it is part of me-and-the-world taken as a unity. When I think of myself, I will always have 3 time dimensions: my past, my present, and what I will become. We exist as 3 temporal dimensions at once (OCC to Heidegger p64). We can never be fully contained in the here and now. Being cannot be thought about or experienced apart from Time. Dasein IS tensed temporality. Note then that epistemology and the nature of the thinking self are linked! Different views of the thinking self led to different epistemologies.

5. Knowledge as a MIRROR
A. The Cartesian Spectator
3

A Mirror
The knowledge that the Cartesian spectator arrives at has often been called a mirror of reality or of the world. Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant.. all of them are concerned to attain to knowledge that reflects the world or Nature in some accurate way. But Heidegger paved the way for an attack on the mirror, because the mirror depends on a spectator subject who is distanced from reality, just as a mirror is distanced from the object it is reflecting . Rorty (Richard Rorty : Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.pg 6): Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Dewey are in agreement that the following notion must be abandoned: the notion of knowledge as accurate representationof the mind as a great mirror (pg12). Without the notion of the mind as mirror, the notion of knowledge as accuracy of representation would not have suggested itself (pg12) .For W, H and D, the notion of foundations of knowledge and the notion of philosophy revolving around the Cartesian attempt to answer the epistemological skeptic, are set aside. Further, they set aside the notion of the mind as a special subject of study, located in inner space, containing elements or processes which make knowledge possible.they set aside epistemology and metaphysics as possible disciplines.(pg6) Rorty notes how Heidegger and others in fact do away with epistemology as well as metaphysics. What does he mean? Well he means that we cannot start with questions about how we know we know.. because all this pre-supposes a spectator distanced from the world, and so instead you ask What do I know and end up knowing something in-the-way-you-experience-it, and this cannot be certain, or the same for everyone. This effectively does away with epistemology and metaphysics as disciplines. For the Christian please note: Heidegger and others are primarily attacking Cartesianism, not Christianity. We must be careful not to take sides on these debates, but to critique them from a Biblical standpoint. John Frame writes: On the 1st page of the Institutes, Calvin observes that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self are interrelated. We might expect Calvin to add that of course of the two, the knowledge of God comes first. Remarkably, Calvin says instead that he doesnt know which comes first. This comment I take to be enormously perceptive. The best way to look at the matter is that neither knowledge of God nor knowledge of self is possible without knowledge of the other, and growth in one area is always accompanied by growth in the other. I cannot know myself rightly until I see myself as Gods fallen image: fallen, yet saved by grace. But I cannot know God rightly until I seek to know Him as one created by Him, and as a servant. The 2 kinds of knowledge, then, come simultaneously, and they grow togetherFurthermore, all the information we receive about God, through nature, Scripture, or whatever source, comes to us through our eyes, ears, minds and brains through ourselves. Sometimes we dream fondly of a purely objective knowledge of God a knowledge freed from the limitations of our senses, minds, experiences, preparation and so forth. But nothing of this sort is possible, and God does not demand it of us A purely objective knowledge is precisely what we dont want! Such knowledge would presuppose a denial of our creaturehood and thus a denial of God and of all truth. John Frame : The doctrine of the Knowledge of God P&R 1987

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

No Mirror
The issue of the Mirror disappears. I and reality are dependant on each other. I cannot reflect a static reality in a static inner self. I must uncover a dynamic reality through my interaction with that reality. Sartre made this clear in his famous statement: Existence before Essence In other words, I cant first establish what I am (my essence) and then establish what reality is all about. Sartre says: No ! You first become aware of your existence-in-the-world, and then you can try and establish what you are in yourself (your essence).

6. ALIENATION
Alienation

A. The Cartesian Spectator

When Descartes formed the spectator, he separated man from the world. The "I" , the Subject, could be thought of and postulated without any reference to the external world. And then, when he reintroduced the material world, he re-introduced a world which is foreign or alien to normal human experience: a world of cold science, devoid of obvious meaning for all of us. But perhaps meaning could still be found via God who supplies a Cartesian guarantee that the world is after all the world God made for us. If it is made for us, we should be able to find meaning in it. 4

But from the 1700's on, as increasingly philosophers felt no need for God, this problem of the spectator alienated from the reality around him became more intense. ( based on Cooper Existentialism p23)

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

Escape from Alienation
In this way these philosophers felt that Alienation is overcome. To such thinkers, the world and reality as understood by them results in a return to something that is more humanised. Being-in-the-world means that reality is my world, my reality. It is not a cold scientific one from which I am detached as an observer. My being-in-the world ensures that I am not alienated but united with what is. Students of psychology at university are taught that the Cartesian system has been replaced with what is called an Ecosystemic approach. An Eco-system is holistic.. it is a system in which no part is privileged (in the Cartesian system, the thinking self is the privileged starting point.) Ecosystemics in many ways is derived from Heidegger. The counseling philosophy that derives from Ecosystemics is that the counselor is part of the system. The counselor is not separated from the counselee as in a Cartesian approach.

7. Knowledge & Binaries

A. The Cartesian Spectator
Dualism
Descartes was a dualist i.e. in his ontology there was either matter or mind. In its own way then, Cartesianism gave rise to binaries of the either/or kind e.g. Either mind or matter. For Descartes, such binaries (he never used the term or the notion) are ontological. (This is not the same use of binaries as encountered in Structuralism where the idea of binaries has to do with concepts that exist in La Langue and that emerge as people seek the meaning of the world in which they live.)

B. Heideggerian Being-in-the-world (Existenz)

No Dualism - No Binaries
Heidegger insisted that reality is a referential totality i.e. a unity. It cannot be divided into binaries. And even though Heidegger did in 1935 concede that humans do not speak, but rather language speaks us an idea that became central to structuralist and post-structuralist theories (CDoP Heidegger), yet even so Heidegger did not talk about binaries because his existentialist position insisted on a me+reality unity what we need to do is to focus on how the world shows up in the flux of everyday activities. The Language that speaks us is not a La Langue of culture, but the language of Being.. the language of existence .. it is not a language of words but of flashes of deep insight e.g. when a hammer breaks .. it is no longer a hammer but something else. It is in this act of breakage that a flash of insight about what existence truly consists of, is disclosed to me. And it reveals that I constitute my world (a hammer is only a hammer to humans) and that my world constitutes me. -------------------------------------------------Sources:
Grayling, A.C: Philosophy Cooper, David: Existentialism; Cottingham, John: Descartes; Zacharias, Ravi: Can Man live without God?; Rockmore, Tom: Heidegger and French Philosophy; Magee Confessions of a Philos; Oxford Companion to Philosophy; Rorty, Richard: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature Frame, John: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; Edwards, Betty: Drawing on the right side of the Brain ----------------------

See downalods 2 June 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/72540092/Ricouer-Narrative-Interpretation Ricouer-Narrative-Interpretation ON PAUL RICOEUR by David Wood 224 pages

Kevin J.Vanhoozer is Lecturer in Theology at the University of Edinburgh, where he specializes in Paul Ricoeur, contemporary hermeneutics and questions of theological method. He is the author of Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (1990) and several essays on hermeneutics An essential companion to Time and Narrative, this collection also provides an excellent introduction to Ricoeurs later work and to contemporary works in philosophical hermeneutics. It will be of major interest to literary theorists, narratologists, historians and philosophers. David Wood teaches philosophy at the University of Warwick, where he is Director of the Centre for Research in Philosophy and Literature. He is the author of The Deconstruction of Time and Philosophy at the Limit. This book examines the later work of Paul Ricoeur, particularly his major work, Time and Narrative. The essays, including three pieces by Ricoeur himself, consider this important study, extending and developing the debate it has inspired. Time and Narrative is the finest example of contemporary philosophical hermeneutics and is one of the most significant works of philosophy published in the late twentieth century. Paul Ricoeurs study of the intertwining of time and narrative proposes and examines the possibility that narrative could remedy a fatal deficiency in any purely phenomenological approach. He analysed both literary and historical writing, from Proust to Braudel, as well as key figures in the history of philosophy: Aristotle, Augustine, Kant, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. PHILOSOPHICAL ANTECEDENTS TO RICOEURS TIME AND NARRATIVE by Kevin J.Vanhoozer In the first section of this paper I discuss Ricoeurs approach to Kants problem of the productive or creative imagination. In the second section I focus on Ricoeurs appropriation of Heideggers notion of the temporality of human being. I wish to argue that Ricoeurs narrative theory is an attempt to think these two problems, imagination and time, together. The final section considers Ricoeurs recent work in light of his larger philosophical project, the Philosophy of the Will, and his attempt to answer the question: What is Man? by discovering what is humanly possible. Ricoeur, represented by his earlier work in philosophical anthropology, is himself an important philosophical antecedent to Time and Narrative.