Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 545–568 | Cite as

Metontology, moral particularism, and the “art of existing:” a dialogue between Heidegger, Aristotle, and Bernard Williams

Article

Abstract

An important shift occurs in Martin Heidegger’s thinking one year after the publication of Being and Time, in the Appendix to the Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. The shift is from his project of fundamental ontology—which provides an existential analysis of human existence on an ontological level—to metontology. Metontology is a neologism that refers to the ontic sphere of human experience and to the regional ontologies that were excluded from Being and Time. It is within metontology, Heidegger states, that “the question of ethics may be raised for the first time.” This paper makes explicit both Heidegger’s argument for metontology, and the relation between metontology and ethics. In examining what he means by “the art of existing,” the paper argues that there is an ethical dimension to Heidegger’s thinking that corresponds to a moderate form of moral particularism. In order to justify this position, a comparative analysis is made between Heidegger, Aristotle, and Bernard Williams.

Keywords

Martin Heidegger Aristotle Bernard Williams Moral particularism Metontology 

References

  1. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean ethics, 2nd ed (trans: Irwin, T.). Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhurst, David. 2000. Ethical particularism in context. In Moral particularism, ed. B. Hooker, and M. Little. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bernasconi, Robert. 1993. The double concept of philosophy’ and the place of ethics in being and time. In Heidegger in Question: The art of existing. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernasconi, Robert. 1987. Fundamental ontology, metontology, and the ethics of ethics. Irish Philosophical Journal 4 (1 and 2): 76–93.Google Scholar
  5. Borgmann, Albert. 1987. Technology and the character of contemporary life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The political ontology of Martin Heidegger (trans: Collier, P.). San Francisco: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brandom, Robert. 1992. Heidegger’s categories in being and time. In Heidegger: A critical reader, ed. H. Dreyfus and H. Hall. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Crowell, Steven. 2000. Metaphysics, metontology, and the end of being and time. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LX (2): 307–331.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlstrom, Daniel. 2001. Heidegger’s concept of truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dancy, Jonathan. 1993. Moral reasons. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Dancy, Jonathan. 2009. Moral Particularism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#moral-particularism-Dancy.
  12. Farías, Victor. 1987. Heidegger and Nazism, ed. J. Margolis and T. Rockmore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Faye, Emmanuel. 2010. Heidegger: The introduction of Nazism into philosophy in light of the unpublished seminars of 1933–1935 (trans: Smith, M. B.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, Lauren. 2009. Recognition reconsidered: A re-reading of Heidegger’s being and time §26. Philosophy Today 53 (1 (Spring)): 85–99.Google Scholar
  15. Garfield, Jay. 2000. Particularity and principle. In Moral particularism, ed. B. Hooker and M. Little. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Greisch, Jean. 1987. Ethics and ontology: Some hypocritical reflections. Irish Philosophical Journal 4: 64–75.Google Scholar
  17. Ha, Peter. 2004. Heidegger and solipsism. Gimhae, Korea: Inje University.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures (trans: Lawrence, F. G.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hatab, Lawrence. 2000. Ethics and Finitude: Heideggerian contributions to moral philosophy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and time. vol. Sein Und Zeit (Tübigen: Max Niemeyer, 2001) (trans: Mcquarrie, J. and Robinson, E.). San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Heidegger, Martin. 1982. Basic problems of phenomenology. Vol. Die Grundprobleme Der Phänomenologie. Vol. 24, Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1997) (trans: Hofstadter, A.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, Martin. 1992. Metaphysical foundations of logic. Vol. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe Der Logik, Vol. 26, Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2007) (trans: Heim, M.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, Martin. 2002. Essence of human freedom: An introduction to philosophy (trans: Sadler, T.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  24. Heidegger, Martin. 2004. Phenomenology of religious life. Vol. Phänomenologie Des Religiösen Lebens. Gesamtausgabe Vol. 60 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1995) (trans: Fritsch, M. and Gosetti-Ferencei, J. A.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heidegger, Martin. 2009. Basic concepts of aristotelian philosophy (trans: Metcalf, R. D. and Tanzer, M. B.). Vol. Grundbegriffe Der Aristotelischen Philosophie. Vol. 18, Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2002). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hodge, Joanna. 1995. Heidegger and ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kellner, Douglas. 1983. Authenticity and Heidegger’s challenge of ethical theory. In Thinking about being: Aspects of Heidegger’s thought, ed. R. W. Shahan, and J. N. Mohanty. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kisiel, Theodore. 2005. Rhetorical protopolitics in Heidegger and Arendt. In Heidegger and rhetoric, ed. M. J. Hyde, and A. Kemmann. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  29. Krell, David. 1986. Intimations of mortality: Time, truth, and finitude in Heidegger’s being and time. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (trans: Lingis, A.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Little, Margaret. 2000. Moral generalities revisited. In Moral particularism, ed. B. Hooker and M. Little. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Little, Margaret. 1995. Seeing and caring: The role of affect in feminist moral epistemology. Hypatia 10 (3 (Summer)): 117–137.Google Scholar
  33. Löwith, Karl. 1995. Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism (trans Steiner, G.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After virtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  35. Margolis, Joseph. ed. 1992. The Heidegger case: On philosophy and politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. McDowell, John. 1997. Virtue and reason. In Virtue ethics, ed. R. Crisp and M. Slote. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. McNaughton, David. 1988. Moral vision: An introduction to ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. McNeill, Will. 1992. Metaphysics, fundamental ontology, metontology 1925–1935. Heidegger Studies 8: 63–79.Google Scholar
  39. McNeill, Will. 1998. Care for the self: Originary ethics in Heidegger and Foucault. Philosophy Today 42(1): 53–64.Google Scholar
  40. McNeill, Will. 2006. The time of life: Heidegger and Ethos. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  41. Nancy, Jean-Luc. 2000. Being singular plural. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Olafson, Frederick. 1973. Ethics and twentieth century thought. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Olafson, Frederick. 1998. Heidegger and the ground of ethics: A study of Mitsein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Philipse, Herman. 1999. Heidegger’s ethics. Inquiry 42: 439–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pöggeler, Otto. 1994. Heidegger on art. In Martin Heidegger: Politics, art, and technology, ed. K. Harries and C. Jamme. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  47. Ricoeur, Paul. 1992. Oneself as another (trans: Blamey, K.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rockmore, Tom. 1992. On Heidegger’s Nazism and philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, Leo. 1983. Studies in platonic political philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Strauss, Leo. 1989. The rebirth of classical political rationalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tugendhat, Ernst. 1986. Self-consciousness and self-determination (trans: Stern, P.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Vogel, Lawrence. 1994. The Fragile ‘We’: The ethical implications of Heidegger’s being and time. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  53. von Hermann, Friedrich-Willhelm. Wege Ins Ereignis: Zu Heideggers “Beitragen Zur Philosophie” Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, Bernard. 1981. Moral luck: Philosophical papers 1973–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wolin, Richard. 1992. The politics of being. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wolin, Richard. (ed.). 1998. The Heidegger controversy: A critical reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, David. 1999. The experience of the ethical. In Questioning ethics: Contemporary debates in philosophy, ed. R. Kearney and M. Dooley. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Wood, David. 2005. The step back: Ethics and politics after deconstruction. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyConcordia UniversityWest MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations