In reading of Poetic Phenomenological Mediation 7, the figure of the scientist is contrasted with the persona of the philosopher as a way of underling the unique activity of thinking that defines the work of the latter. Moreover, in order to sharpen this contrast I recall that the thinking activity of the philosopher is best described as 'contemplation.' Several citations from Heidegger appear in this meditation, including one that completes the following sentence that offers further musing on the question, How is it with the Nothing?: "The question delivers a message to us and in doing so places us in a relation, "and the relation is called hermeneutical because it brings the tidings of that message."
February 13, 2014 was the 10th anniversary of the original experiment that produced 363 phenomenological mediations, published as 'Being and Learning' (Brill: 2012). Each day between Feb 2014-15, I returned to the original meditations, and my commentary is documented here. And then, again, on February 15, 2024, on the 20th anniversary of the first days of the original experiment, I revisit and comment on a daily basis, once again.
20 years after the original meditation: the figure of the scientist in Heidegger is too general to account for those who are currently applying their research towards the study of climate change, as one important example. Heidegger's critique remains entirely appropriate in my field, which has been taken over by cognitive psychologists. The fundamental question of being and learning is entirely missed by them. They don't receive the message generated by the crisis. Their "method" prevents them from perceiving the essential question because, they claim, it is impossible to perform the necessary ephoché. In turn, the question, How is it with the Nothing?, is deemed absurd, esoteric and all together nonsensical.
ReplyDelete