Existential physics as phenomenology Heidegger’s comment on Aristotle’s Physics

8/18/2019 Existential physics as phenomenology Heidegger’s comment on Aristotle’s Physics

1/22

Existential physicsas phenomenology

Heidegger’s commenton Aristotle’s Physics


2/22

Vasil Penchev*

*Bulgarian Academy of Sciences:Institute for Philosophical Research

(Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge)

[email protected]

“Aristotle in Phenomelogy”, Fort Wayne, IN, USA

April 23-24, 2016

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/22

From Husserl to Heidegger

•One can interpret the “phenomena” in Husserl’s senexistences (“existentia”) of the “things themselves” othemselves

• Husserl rejected that approach as “naturalization” ofphenomenology

• Heidegger himself, though revising or developing farHusserl’s phenomenology, refuted to be an “existent


4/22

Heidegger and Greeks

•Heidegger tried to reinterpret Greek philosophy espfew Pre-Socratics in that manner:

• The phenomenon (as “meaning it in itself by itself ”) identified as naïvely as wisely with the being (insepafrom the existence) of each certain thing


5/22

“Φύσις” in Aristotle’s Physics

•The same approach of Heidegger penetrates his extecomment on a single fragment (B, 1) from Aristotle’s

• The part in question refers to the concept of “Φύσιςgenerally

• Heidegger’s reflection addresses the relation of thatGreek philosophy and Aristotle’s particularly to the mEuropean understanding of nature as opposed to bohuman being and technics


6/22

Truth as ἀλήθεια

•

Heidegger’s way of interpretation merges the things and thePlatonic “ideas” in the initial Φύσις thinkable as both χάος aἀλήθεια

• Heidegger means the latter as that truth relevant to both Grhis philosophy: ἀλήθεια is ἀ-λήθεια, i.e. the appearance at ahiddenness as un-hiddenness

• That concept of truth is not underlain by any opposition to ait has not the form of the Latin adaequatio, the origin of whoften searched again in Aristotle


7/22

Nature as truth

•Truth as ἀ-λήθεια is phenomenon as appearance whbeing and existence are both yet and initially insepafrom each other.

• Thus truth as ἀ-λήθεια is φύσις at the same time

• Nature is Truth before any opposition, particularly thhuman being to nature


8/22

The Greek τέχνη

•

The Greek τέχνη is seen analogically as “going out ofhiddenness into un-hiddenness”

• It is not thought in the modern manner as creatingsomething artificial, technical, which has not existednatural way, and even it might not exist in nature in

principle:

• Thus τέχνη cannot be the modern technics at all


9/22

What τέχνη means

•

On the contrary, τέχνη means the hidden essence torevealed, literally the veil to be removed

• Thus, truth to be seen: τέχνη is not and cannot be opto φύσις, it assists for the human beings to be able tobserve the φύσις in an obvious way.


10/22

Philosophy and poetry merging into τέχ

•

For example, a wooden chair reveals the strength anreliability of the tree, from which the chair has been

• That τέχνη is not opposed furthermore to philosophpoetry:

• It may be thought as an another, namely material waphilosophizing or poeticizing


11/22

The “essence given at the end”: ἐντελέχ

•

Aristotle’s ἐντελέχεια is interpreted analogically andrelatively to τέχνη:

• It means the “essence to be given at the end” in Heidinterpretation,

• It is given at the ultimate stage in the natural develo

• One may say that mankind and nature collaborate wother by means correspondingly of τέχνη and of natdevelopment both sharing ἐντελέχεια as their essen


12/22


13/22

“Seiendheit”: οὐσία

• The beingness, “οὐσία” is the essence of existence, “phenomenon” in Husserl’s sense. I

• It is at the same time, “estate”, “land”: what is lordedto the literary sense of the word transformed into a term right by Aristotle

• Thus οὐσία is the lording beginning of all the existin

substantia, which underlies all as whatever elements“water”, “air”, “soil”, “fair”, etc

• It is the beginning rather as the ultimate “phenomenof any other phenomenon and further of anything to


14/22

Physics: The Book of Western Philosoph

•

Heidegger called Aristotle’s Physics “the secret, nevesufficiently rethought base book of WesternPhilosophy” [1].

• This can explain the choice of Heidegger to commennamely it


15/22

Still one reduction

• One should mean Heidegger’s, maybe too creativeinterpretation of Husserl’s reduction

• Husserl’s reductions are eidetic, phenomenological, transcendental

• They can be considered as a single reduction in thredifferent contexts: correspondingly mathematics, psy

and philosophy• Heidegger offered in still one context, transformed in

classical one after Hegel, that of the history of philos

• Heidegger called it “destruction”, and Derrida

“deconstruction”


16/22

Destruction as a reduction

• A method to be obtained a phenomenon of philosopdevelopment is what is meant

• It returns philosophy to its beginning right in Ancien

and to its initial books such as Aristotle’s Physics


17/22

Reduction to origin

• Indeed, all future development of philosophy can beas a collection of “things” (which are philosophical din the case at issue)

• They share one and the same “εἶδος” or “phenomenHusserl’s sense by their common origin

• Consequently, Heidegger’s destruction can be under

a historical and philosophical reduction to the origin

• Therefore , it synthesizes Husserl’s and Hegel’s approtranscendental consciousness interpreted as dialectidevelopment by the latter, right in history of philoso


18/22

Destruction is not restoring

•

That destruction does not intend any authentic restothe original sense and meaning of the primary sourcthough Heidegger gave just that form

• Derrida’s term “deconstruction” is maybe more outrobviously hinting a new deconstructing reconstructio


19/22

Origin as εἶδος of development

•

This is what the ancient philosopher should mean if Heidegger reduces all descendant development to thor phenomenon as its origin.

• Of course, the ancient philosopher might hardly meathe following development, though as if removed, is

meant in a negative way to be obtained the εἶδος of


20/22

Criticism

•

Heidegger has been many time criticized that hisrecollections are too creative and does not correspofacts

• However, that kind of criticism does not penetrate inessence of destruction as restoring the essence by m

historical and philosophical reduction


21/22

The structure of the paper

• The paper is structured as follows:

• The sections are devoted to a few Aristotle’s terms froB, 1, which are fundamental rather for Heidegger’s intof Western Philosophy as originated from that “Secret“never rethought enough”

• Each section elucidates a basic word, correspondingly successively: ἀλήθεια, χάος, τέχνη, ἐντελέχεια, ενέργεand φύσις

• The last and conclusive section, Recollection tries to elmethod of destruction in the way of Heidegger’s thougthan conceptually by means of his text Recollection deHölderlin’s hymn of the same title


22/22

Reference:

•

Heidegger, M. (1939) “Vom Wesen und Begriff der ΦAristoteles, Physik , B, 1,” in: Gesamtausgabe. Band 9(Wegmarken). Frankfurt AM, Vittorio Klostermann, 1239-302

Existential physics as phenomenology Heidegger’s comment on Aristotle’s Physics

Documents