-
What is distinctive about the "rigor of research" and its
working out of a "fixed ground plan" (AWP 118) in the modern
understanding of being? Does it differ from the more general tendency
of understandings of being to be ‘all-governing’ or totalizing?
-
What would a ‘free relation’ to technicity consist in (QCT 26)? Describe,
in as concrete a way as possible, how it would be manifested. How
would a free relation to technicity differ from a rejection of it?
What difference would a free relation to technicity make in our lives?
-
Heidegger writes (QCT 26): "The destining of revealing is in
itself not just any danger, but danger as such. Yet when destining
reigns in the mode of Enframing, it is the supreme danger." What
is the danger of all modes of revealing? Why is the danger greatest
in the technicity mode of revealing?
-
How does the understanding of an ‘object’ (Gegenstand, in
AWP) unfold into the understanding of ‘standing-reserve’ (Bestand,
in QCT)? How does this shift manifest itself in everyday life?
-
When do things thing? All the time? Occasionally? Be sure to support
your claim with evidence from the texts we have read, and to consider
objections to your view. What difference would your position make
to our understanding of things? What difference does it make to our
understanding of how language calls things and how we are to listen
to that call?
-
What does Heidegger mean by ‘world’ in "The Thing" and
"Language"? How does this understanding of ‘world’ relate
to the understanding of ‘world’ in OWA? Does this show a change in
Heidegger’s account of the rift (Riss) as both struggle and
intimacy?
-
Are human beings essentially homeless, according to Heidegger? What
does "homelessness" mean in "Building Dwelling Thinking"?
What does "dwelling" mean? Does dwelling overcome homelessness?
And, if not, what does it have to do with homelessness? What difference
does the account make for our way of living?
-
What does Heidegger mean when he says that "language speaks"
(L 190, WTL 124)? How is human speaking needed and used by language?
How does Heidegger’s account of language give us a ‘new experience’
of language, and why does he think we need to experience language
anew?
-
Heidegger asserts that Ereignis is the "moving force"
of saying (WTL 127). Does Ereignis need language? If so, why
and how?
NOTE: You are encouraged to write on your own topic, but you
must have Liz’s or Forrest’s approval before you begin.
Length: 8 pages (2250 words)
Due: Monday, December 6th, 1999, in the Howison Library
by 4 p.m. One grade increment (for example, A to A-) will be taken
off for papers that are handed in by Wednesday, and a full grade will
be taken off for each two days after that.
Suggestions:
(1) Raise specific questions, and answer them as specifically
as possible. (2) Support your arguments with details from the text.
(3) Avoid jargon, such as "metaphysics of presence," "nihilism,"
and so forth. In using words such as "beingness" and "world,"
be sure to make clear Heidegger’s sense of the term. (4) Avoid merely
repeating what was said in lectures or sections. (5) Develop your
arguments, wherever possible, with attention to the phenomena that
Heidegger is working with. (6) IMPORTANT: Keep a hard or soft copy
of your essay.