Since the excerpt by Martin Heidegger is so difficult, there aren't study questions for it. But do try to make as much sense of it as you can. The first paragraph is really intimidating, but stick with it, it gets a little easier. We'll focus on paragraphs 3 and 4 on CR 139, as well as the final paragraph in the excerpt (CR 140), so give those close attention. Again, if you can't make sense of it, don't worry. I'll explain the key issues in class.
For now, I'll just give you the basic idea that he wants to get across in this reading. Heidegger believes that because we define ourselves by adopting values, choices, ways of life, and meanings that are given to us by our communities and by others, we are deeply connected to others and have a deeply social nature.
As we proceed through life, we begin by being like other people, sharing their beliefs and values and choices. But we are unique as individuals, and so we each have unique possibilities that others don't have. When we realize these possibilities in our actions and choices, we become authentic individuals, separating ourselves from our origins in a sort of social or communal nature.
He draws two important conclusions. First, because we live in a social world where we have so much in common with others, we often forget about our own unique possibilities, and society often imposes values or choices on us that are not our own, leading us to live in conformity rather than realizing our individual nature.
Second, he concludes that our social nature--the basic possibilities and meanings we share with others--is a true part of who we are, so we can't solve this problem of conformity by rejecting what we have in common with others, but we do have to realize we are more than just our roots in a shared human and cultural community.
Good luck with the reading. To get you started, here are some definitions of his terminology:
Da-sein: Heidegger uses this word to refer to humans. It means "There-Being," and with it he refers to human nature, to those primary characteristics that make us human. For Heidegger, human beings' primary characteristic is that we don't act according to a set nature but decide what we want to be, choosing among various possibilities what we will become.
The They: Heidegger's term for the anonymous crowd, and for the tendency individuals have of forgetting their own uniqueness. When an individuals act simply as one of "the they," they forget to think and choose for themselves, and instead conform to habit, pressure, or expectations of general society.
Existentially/existential: When Heidegger uses this term, he is describing something that he believes is true of every human being. Something is "existential" for Heidegger if it a primary characteristic of human beings or aspect of their existence.
Distantiality: The way that human beings care about their similarities and differences. We are exhibiting "distantiality" when we enjoy being one of the group or worry about being outside of the group, when we take pleasure in excelling and being different or better than others, or when we worry about not being as good as someone else. These are all ways that human beings care about their "distance" from each other. The reason we care about this is because as human beings we have a lot in common, and so feel "close" to each other. But we are also unique individuals, and so we also feel "distant" from each other in some ways, and even enjoy feeling distinct, separate, unique.
Referential context of significance: A worldview or basic interpretation of human life shared by members of a community or culture. This worldview may include beliefs about human possibilities, values, goals, and meanings. These possibilities and meanings provide the context in which individuals make choices, and it is in reference to them that choices and actions have significance or meaning. Because our choices take place in a world of shared meanings or values, we need others to define ourselves--we give our actions meaning by choosing from shared values and possibilities. So, the "referential context of significance" helps us define ourselves, but it's also a possible threat to individuality, since we sometimes take for granted that this shared worldview is the only correct one.
Study Questions for Tuesday:
1. Why does Kierkegaard think the crowd is untruth, even when the individuals that form it originally possessed the truth? In what way does he think the crowd is irresponsible and cowardly?
2. Why does Kierkegaard associate the crowd with the press? He says that we can’t use the press to overcome errors. Why not? What do you think he would say about web media?
3. Why is accepting the authority of the crowd a failure to love our neighbor?
4. Kierkegaard says that when he uses the word “truth,” he means “eternal truth." If we reject the idea of eternal truth, do we have to reject Kierkegaard's view and instead say that the crowd is truth?
Study Questions for Thursday:
1. In Hannah Arendt's essay, she describes the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who helped execute the Nazi's "final solution": the systematic murder of approximately 6 million Jews. Eichmann claimed he wasn't guilty before the law. Why not? What explanation does he give for his actions? Why didn't he realize that what he was doing was wrong or oppose the plan?
2. Arendt points out that psychologists found Eichmann's mental health to be "normal," and that Eichmann did not seem to possess any deep personal hatred for the Jews. Why does she think this is important?
3. Arendt points out that some Jewish leaders cooperated with the Nazis, helping with the administrative task of identifying and rounding up the individuals who would be taken to the concentration camps. She also suggests that millions of Jews might have escaped had it not been for the advice of these leaders.
How did these Jewish officials explain their cooperation? Even if their intentions were good, does that justify their actions? What would you have done in their place?
4. How do you think Camus' character of Meursault would have acted if he was in Eichmann's place? Do you think the Meursault of Part One of the novel would have acted differently than the Meursault at the end of the novel?
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975)
No comments:
Post a Comment