Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 377-394    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-005-016-0028-7
Orginal Article
A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation
Frank Schalow()
Department of Philosophy, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA
 Download: PDF(444 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

While scholars have paid considerable attention to Heidegger’s creative reinterpretation of Kant’s transcendental philosophy, little interest has been given to tracing the methodological steps by which the former’s work can house the key epistemic themes of the latter (e.g., those raised in the Critique of Pure Reason) within a broader, ontological problematic. To rectify this shortcoming, I propose outlining a “Diltheyan loop,” in order to make explicit a tapestry of presuppositions by which Heidegger anchors the epistemic themes of theoretical knowing (e.g., the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments) in the pre-theoretical, pre-predicative, and pre-discursive level of self-understanding (in which the possibility of understanding being [Sein] is also rooted). By showing how this “Diltheyan loop” is operative in the fore-structure of Heidegger’s Kant-interpretation, I will illuminate the overall strategy by which he recasts, retrieves, and reinterprets the key motifs of the Critique of Pure Reason, which at the same time will shed light on the controversies and criticisms that have arisen in the subsequent decades.

Keywords hermeneutics      phenomenology      understanding      temporality      finitude     
Issue Date: 19 September 2016
 Cite this article:   
Frank Schalow. A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 377-394.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-005-016-0028-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2016/V11/I3/377
[1] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[2] Saulius Geniusas. Husserlian Phenomenology and Derridean Deconstruction: Their Fundamental Methodological Commitments[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 451-471.
[3] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[4] LI Jing. Day and Night Overlap: Jan Patočka’s Phenomenological Interpretation of the Front-Line Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 409-426.
[5] Genki Uemura. Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 352-379.
[6] Emilia Angelova. Hegel after Nancy: Sensibility, Singularity, and the Problem of the x[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 535-553.
[7] Hans-Georg Moeller. Necessity and Memory in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reconstruction[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 505-517.
[8] Giulio Tononi, Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
[9] WANG Qingjie. The “Gongfu Finger” and Learning in the Analects [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(2): 232-239.
[10] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[11] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[12] ZHENG Shuhong. James Legge’s Hermeneutical Methodology as Revealed in His Translation of the Daxue[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 249-264.
[13] Tara Kennedy. The Ethics of Treating Animals as Resources: A Post-Heideggerian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 463-482.
[14] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[15] JIN Xiping. Heidegger’s Conception of Being-with (Mitsein ) and His Simple Designation of Social and Political Reality in the Black Notebooks[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 415-429.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed