Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contribution to the Debate: Heidegger’s Theory of Authentic Discourse

  • Chapter
Foundations of Morality, Human Rights, and the Human Sciences

Part of the book series: Analecta Husserliana ((ANHU,volume 15))

  • 170 Accesses

Abstract

In what follow I will pursue two goals. First, I will comment on the paper of Professor Stewart. Second, I will present a theory of authentic discourse. I will conclude by arguing that Heidegger would not have found scientific discourse authentic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. I have presented an expanded notion of this position in ‘Heidegger’s Theory of Authentic Discourse,’ delivered to the International Society for the History of Rhetoric meeting in Amsterdam, June 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957);George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1963);Craig R. Smith, ‘The Medieval Subjugation and the Existential Elevation of Rhetoric,’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (Summer 1975): 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957);George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1963);Craig R. Smith, ‘The Medieval Subjugation and the Existential Elevation of Rhetoric,’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (Summer 1975): 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957);George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1963);Craig R. Smith, ‘The Medieval Subjugation and the Existential Elevation of Rhetoric,’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 5 (Summer 1975): 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See for example, Martin Buber, I and Thou (New York: Scribners, 1954) inclusive of his discussion of dialogical relationships; Karl Jaspers, Philosophy, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See for example, Martin Buber, I and Thou (New York: Scribners, 1954) inclusive of his discussion of dialogical relationships; Karl Jaspers, Philosophy, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 32, hereafter cited as BT. See also pp. 56, 61, 67, 90.

    Google Scholar 

  8. BT, p. 316. See also pp. 102, 264, 266. In What is Called Thinking, trans. Fred D. Weick and J. Glenn Gray (New York: Harper and Row, 1968) he praises the pre-Socratics for realizing that the logos should “lay bare” the truth (p. 10). See also pp. 130—31.

    Google Scholar 

  9. BT, pp. 139–42.

    Google Scholar 

  10. BT, p. 320.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Calvin Schrag, Existence and Freedom (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1961), pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. William J. Richardson, Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1974), p. 535. But Heidegger seems to reject this formulation in On the Way to Language.

    Google Scholar 

  13. BT, p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas Langan, The Meaning of Heidegger (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Heidegger, ‘Introduction to the Metaphysics,’ in From Shakespeare to Existentialism, ed. Walter Kaufmann (Garden City, Doubleday, 1960), p. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Langan, p. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  18. bid., p. 209. Jaspers (1: 43–60) expresses a like goal.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Richardson, pp. 14, 27, 40, 47.

    Google Scholar 

  20. BT, p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kaufmann, Existentialism, p. 207. One is reminded of the primordial “light” in the Gospel of St. John.

    Google Scholar 

  22. What is Called Thinking, p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vortrage Und Aufsatze (Pfullingen: Neske, 1954), pp. 207–29.

    Google Scholar 

  24. BT, p.51.

    Google Scholar 

  25. BT, p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  26. BT, p. 108. See also pp. 110, 120–21, 191–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kaufmann, Existentialism, p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  28. BT, pp. 192–93.

    Google Scholar 

  29. BT, pp. 195–96.

    Google Scholar 

  30. BT, p. 269.

    Google Scholar 

  31. BT, pp. 268–69.

    Google Scholar 

  32. In later works the emphasis falls on the event of appropriation, the confrontation of Dasein and Being.

    Google Scholar 

  33. BT, p. 203. Logos is an existentiale of Dasein.

    Google Scholar 

  34. The reader is encouraged to examine Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). See also Karlfried Grunder, ‘Heidegger’s Critique of Science in Its Historical Background,’ Philosophy Today 1 (1963): 15–32; Langan, pp. 143–200; Richardson, ‘Heidegger’ss Critique of Science,’s New Scholasticism 42 (1968): 511–536; Richard Schmitt, ‘Heidegger’ss Analysis of Tool,’s Monist 49 (1965): 70–86. Professor Stewart has neglected these studies in his analysis of Heidegger’s position.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The reader is encouraged to examine Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). See also Karlfried Grunder, ‘Heidegger’s Critique of Science in Its Historical Background,’ Philosophy Today 1 (1963): 15–32; Langan, pp. 143–200; Richardson, ‘Heidegger’ss Critique of Science,’s New Scholasticism 42 (1968): 511–536; Richard Schmitt, ‘Heidegger’ss Analysis of Tool,’s Monist 49 (1965): 70–86. Professor Stewart has neglected these studies in his analysis of Heidegger’s position.

    Google Scholar 

  36. The reader is encouraged to examine Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). See also Karlfried Grunder, ‘Heidegger’s Critique of Science in Its Historical Background,’ Philosophy Today 1 (1963): 15–32; Langan, pp. 143–200; Richardson, ‘Heidegger’ss Critique of Science,’s New Scholasticism 42 (1968): 511–536; Richard Schmitt, ‘Heidegger’ss Analysis of Tool,’s Monist 49 (1965): 70–86. Professor Stewart has neglected these studies in his analysis of Heidegger’s position.

    Google Scholar 

  37. The reader is encouraged to examine Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). See also Karlfried Grunder, ‘Heidegger’s Critique of Science in Its Historical Background,’ Philosophy Today 1 (1963): 15–32; Langan, pp. 143–200; Richardson, ‘Heidegger’ss Critique of Science,’s New Scholasticism 42 (1968): 511–536; Richard Schmitt, ‘Heidegger’ss Analysis of Tool,’s Monist 49 (1965): 70–86. Professor Stewart has neglected these studies in his analysis of Heidegger’s position.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington, DC, USA

    Craig R. Smith

Authors
  1. Craig R. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The World Phenomenology Institute, Belmont, Massachusetts, USA

    Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka

  2. Purdue University, USA

    Calvin O. Schrag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 D. Reidel Publishing Company

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, C.R. (1983). Contribution to the Debate: Heidegger’s Theory of Authentic Discourse. In: Tymieniecka, AT., Schrag, C.O. (eds) Foundations of Morality, Human Rights, and the Human Sciences. Analecta Husserliana, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6975-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6975-9_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6977-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6975-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation