JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
The Collision of Science with the Question of Be-ing in Heidegger’s Thinking
Heidegger Studies / Heidegger Studien / Etudes Heideggeriennes / Studi Heideggeriani, Vol. 39 (2023), Iss. 1 : pp. 119–132
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Prof. Dr. George Kovacs, 12521 S.W. 108th Avenue 33176 –4609 Miami, Florida, USA
References
-
Herrmann, Friedrich-Wilhelm von. Wege ins Ereignis. Zu Heideggers “Beiträgen zur Philosophie”. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann 1994.
Google Scholar -
Herrmann, Friedrich-Wilhelm von. Transzendenz und Ereignis. Heideggers Beiträge zur Philosophie. Ein Kommentar. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 2019.
Google Scholar -
Husserl, Edmund. “Philosophy as Rigorous Science”, in his: Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, trans. (with and Introduction) by Quentin Lauer. New York: Harper and Row 1965.
Google Scholar -
Kovacs, George. “Philosophy as Primordial Science in Heidegger’s Courses of 1919”, in: Theodore Kisiel and John van Buren (eds.), Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 1994, pp. 91 – 107.
Google Scholar -
Kovacs, George. Thinking and Be-ing in Heidegger’s “Beiträge zur Philosophy (Vom Ereignis)”, Bucharest: Zeta Books 2015.
Google Scholar -
Kovacs, George. “The Ontological Difference in Heidegger’s Zum Ereignis-Denken”, in: Heidegger Studies 35 (2019), pp. 175 – 192.
Google Scholar -
Kovacs, George. “Lessons from Heidegger’s Attempt to Rethink Science in his ’Beiträge’”, in: Heidegger Studies 38 (2022), pp. 105 – 119.
Google Scholar -
Schalow, Frank. Toward a Phenomenology of Addiction: Embodiment, Technology, Transcendence, Dordrecht: Springer International 2017.
Google Scholar -
chalow, Frank. “The Question of the Ontological difference in Heidegger’s Dialogue with Kant”, in: Heidegger Studies 35 (2019), pp. 45 – 60.
Google Scholar
Abstract
Science does not lead to the full, final, truly in-depth exploration of beings; it leaves unresolved (unclarified) the understanding of being; it does not think through the question of being, of the “to be”, of the “is”; it does not think being as such; it adopts a metaphysical idea of being as being of beings (as one, the highest of beings). As this study shows, being is not within the range of merely scientific investigation. Many philosophical questions (e. g., the foundation of the sciences; the understanding of the ontological difference) go beyond and transcend the reach of scientific inquiry. The collision of science with the question of being, with the question of the “to be”, comes from science attempting to move beyond its intrinsic limitations and boundary. According to Heidegger’s be-ing-historical thinking, scientific inquiry cannot resolve the question of the “to be” and that of the truth of the “to be”; it cannot eliminate (suppress) these distinctly philosophical concerns. Science cannot become a substitute for philosophy. As this study indicates, the understanding of the danger of the “collision” identified contributes to its prevention and to a creative interaction between science and philosophy.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| George Kovacs: The Collision of Science with the Question of Be-ing in Heidegger&TRapos;s Thinking | 119 | ||
| I. The Tension between Science and Philosophy | 119 | ||
| II. From Tension to Collision | 121 | ||
| III. Learning from the Danger of Collision | 124 | ||
| IV. Be-ing-Historical Account and Mindfulness of Science | 128 | ||
| Bibliography | 131 | ||
| Abstract | 132 |