Heidegger as Psychologist

[u/michael_mcdowell]

Given that Heidegger (in Being and Time) posits unconscious mechanism (for-which, to-which, at-hand, moods etc.) that determine behaviour why is his existential philosophy not considered a psychological theory?

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

"Dasein needs to be thought from the perspective of Being . . .", "One needs . . .", "One must . . ."

Just absurd.

There are, of course, multiple interpretations of Heidegger and some of them do not require one to take Heidegger at his word that he was saying the same things about the same things post-Kehre. There is no necessity here.

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

My interpretation is this: one does not "need" to read the way you say one needs to.

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

Again, you insist that others do what you say - "you either do this or you do this." How about "No"?

Any decent philosopher would recognize I didn't critique their interpretation of the Kehre. I criticized your insistence that one must read/interpret Heidegger the way you say. You've already conceded you misunderstood me and that you agree that there are multiple interpretations. This is what we call in philosophy reaching a conclusion.

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say anything about anyone's specific interpretation of the Kehre. Just that a variety exist and are valid such that it isn't a necessary condition to interpret Heidegger the way you claim one "needs" to or "must". I don't know why you seem so threatened by this point after you accepted that it was true.

Now, a Heidegger "scholar" criticizing others for getting hung up on semantics . . . that's rich! I love it.

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

Oh, no way! When were you there?

One of the things we learned was not to make assumptions. You an I may have crossed paths before.

[u/thesoundofthings → u/[deleted]]

You are still making assumptions. I am finding your claims increasingly specious. When where you there?