"Building, Dwelling, Thinking" Heidegger- Review
In this essay of Martin Heidegger we manage to get a real glimpse on the context of the time it was written in, as well as Heidegger's own philosophy of life and beliefs.
Being one of the most authentic philosophers of the 20th century, Heidegger has pursued his writing on "Building, Dwelling, Thinking" during the wake of the shortage in housing systems after the WW2.
As an existentialist himself, Martin Heidegger has devoted his philosophy to the study of being, relating it to the relationship between thinking, dwelling and building, which he believed had been severed by the modern world. He goes on through his writings trying to re-teach us the proper way of dwelling.
The essay starts off with an explanation regarding the two-way relationship between building and dwelling. It is regarded that it is a simultaneous means-end interrelation where to build does not necessarily mean to dwell, whereas dwelling is necessarily linked to building. It is of importance to mention that the methodology Heidegger uses in order to elaborate his case is based on lexicology, or the study of Language. He believes that the way in which certain words have originated and than been transformed into what they are today conveys quite clearly the journey of human conceptions and how they have developed. So following in this line, Heidegger argues that trying to decipher the origins of a word, in our case the German word "Bauen", may lead us towards understanding the real meaning of what "to Be" is. He than continues on this topic, explaining further on the origins of "bauen" which presently means "to build", and has at its beginning meant "to dwell" or something in the line of "to inhibit a space". Moreover the words "Ich bin" (I am), are also derived from "bauen", so in a sense Heidegger hints at the relation between "being" and "dwelling" which in the end are one and the same but however, not in their most basic characters. To Be (in the sense of how we mortals are on the earth) means to Dwell.
Now that we know the relations between dwelling, being and building we ought to dive a bit deeper on the meaning of the word itself and what is associated with it. What does "to dwell" really mean?
Well, focusing again on its German derivative "bauen", to dwell means to build in two different ways. Firstly it means to care, preserve and cultivate growing things and secondly it refers to erecting buildings on construction terms. While continuing with some other Gothic language examples, Heidegger deduces that "The fundamental character of dwelling is sparing", so being in peace with what surrounds and preserving its freedom.
To add to his understanding of human habitology, Heidegger also tries to explain how he understands the world and its connection to dwelling. He calls it by the name "Primal Oneness" or differently referred to as the Fourfold. This fourfold includes the earth, how we mortals stay on the earth as well as its serving bearer, the sky, where on earth already means under the sky as well as the atmosphere and galaxy, the divinities, where on earth and under the sky also means before the divinities, and the mortals where it includes belonging to a men's being with one another as well as our temporary time on earth which results in death.
According to Heidegger, we mortals are on this fourfold by dwelling. And since the basic character of dwelling is safeguarding, we dwell in the way we safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. So mortals dwell in the way they save, receive and await the earth, sky and divinities as they are, as well as the way they initiate their own essential being - their being capable of death. Accordingly, the way we preserve this fourfold is by keeping it the way with which mortals stay: in things. So, by bringing the very essence of the fourfold into things. However, these things are only capable of preserving the essence of the fourfold when they themselves are let to be in their essence. This is where Heidegger introduces building as a more concrete concept of dwelling and as the keeper of essence.
Consequently, In what way does building belong to dwelling? An important mentioned example is that of the bridge. It gathers the earth, is ready for the sky and weather, grants mortals their way and stands before the divinities. So it gathers all these four factors to itself. Gathering in ancient German means "thing" so the bridge itself is a thing and thus as this thing it gathers the fourfold while allowing a site for it. But only by being itself a locale can it provide space for a site. A locale is already there before the bridge, forming a "thought" relationship between the space defined and the bridge to be. So "the locale comes into existence only by virtue of the bridge".
Expanding on the relationship between man and space, by man we understand dwellers staying within the fourfold among things. Thus space is not a distinct notion disconnected from men but rather a mental representation of distant things where thinking persists through the distance to the locale. So, building, since it produces things as locales, is closer to the essence of spaces and to its essential origins than any other mathematical or geometrical explanation.
Lastly, as an expert contradictor, Heidegger mentions that "Dwelling means Being in its most basic character". However, it now means a different thing than what it meant at the beginning of his writing, and that is because we have now been introduced with how our own existence is directly linked to our relationship with space. And as such our most basic character of being related to space and locale is consequently dwelling. As he also says "Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build" and therefore only by building out of dwelling, and thinking for the sake of dwelling are we able to bring dwelling to the fullest of its essence.
Being one of the most authentic philosophers of the 20th century, Heidegger has pursued his writing on "Building, Dwelling, Thinking" during the wake of the shortage in housing systems after the WW2.
As an existentialist himself, Martin Heidegger has devoted his philosophy to the study of being, relating it to the relationship between thinking, dwelling and building, which he believed had been severed by the modern world. He goes on through his writings trying to re-teach us the proper way of dwelling.
The essay starts off with an explanation regarding the two-way relationship between building and dwelling. It is regarded that it is a simultaneous means-end interrelation where to build does not necessarily mean to dwell, whereas dwelling is necessarily linked to building. It is of importance to mention that the methodology Heidegger uses in order to elaborate his case is based on lexicology, or the study of Language. He believes that the way in which certain words have originated and than been transformed into what they are today conveys quite clearly the journey of human conceptions and how they have developed. So following in this line, Heidegger argues that trying to decipher the origins of a word, in our case the German word "Bauen", may lead us towards understanding the real meaning of what "to Be" is. He than continues on this topic, explaining further on the origins of "bauen" which presently means "to build", and has at its beginning meant "to dwell" or something in the line of "to inhibit a space". Moreover the words "Ich bin" (I am), are also derived from "bauen", so in a sense Heidegger hints at the relation between "being" and "dwelling" which in the end are one and the same but however, not in their most basic characters. To Be (in the sense of how we mortals are on the earth) means to Dwell.
Now that we know the relations between dwelling, being and building we ought to dive a bit deeper on the meaning of the word itself and what is associated with it. What does "to dwell" really mean?
Well, focusing again on its German derivative "bauen", to dwell means to build in two different ways. Firstly it means to care, preserve and cultivate growing things and secondly it refers to erecting buildings on construction terms. While continuing with some other Gothic language examples, Heidegger deduces that "The fundamental character of dwelling is sparing", so being in peace with what surrounds and preserving its freedom.
To add to his understanding of human habitology, Heidegger also tries to explain how he understands the world and its connection to dwelling. He calls it by the name "Primal Oneness" or differently referred to as the Fourfold. This fourfold includes the earth, how we mortals stay on the earth as well as its serving bearer, the sky, where on earth already means under the sky as well as the atmosphere and galaxy, the divinities, where on earth and under the sky also means before the divinities, and the mortals where it includes belonging to a men's being with one another as well as our temporary time on earth which results in death.
According to Heidegger, we mortals are on this fourfold by dwelling. And since the basic character of dwelling is safeguarding, we dwell in the way we safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. So mortals dwell in the way they save, receive and await the earth, sky and divinities as they are, as well as the way they initiate their own essential being - their being capable of death. Accordingly, the way we preserve this fourfold is by keeping it the way with which mortals stay: in things. So, by bringing the very essence of the fourfold into things. However, these things are only capable of preserving the essence of the fourfold when they themselves are let to be in their essence. This is where Heidegger introduces building as a more concrete concept of dwelling and as the keeper of essence.
Consequently, In what way does building belong to dwelling? An important mentioned example is that of the bridge. It gathers the earth, is ready for the sky and weather, grants mortals their way and stands before the divinities. So it gathers all these four factors to itself. Gathering in ancient German means "thing" so the bridge itself is a thing and thus as this thing it gathers the fourfold while allowing a site for it. But only by being itself a locale can it provide space for a site. A locale is already there before the bridge, forming a "thought" relationship between the space defined and the bridge to be. So "the locale comes into existence only by virtue of the bridge".
Expanding on the relationship between man and space, by man we understand dwellers staying within the fourfold among things. Thus space is not a distinct notion disconnected from men but rather a mental representation of distant things where thinking persists through the distance to the locale. So, building, since it produces things as locales, is closer to the essence of spaces and to its essential origins than any other mathematical or geometrical explanation.
Lastly, as an expert contradictor, Heidegger mentions that "Dwelling means Being in its most basic character". However, it now means a different thing than what it meant at the beginning of his writing, and that is because we have now been introduced with how our own existence is directly linked to our relationship with space. And as such our most basic character of being related to space and locale is consequently dwelling. As he also says "Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build" and therefore only by building out of dwelling, and thinking for the sake of dwelling are we able to bring dwelling to the fullest of its essence.
The relevance of the beautiful
In his essay ‘The relevance of the beautiful’, Gadamer explores the manner aesthetic judgement within the arts enhances and enlivens our attentiveness closer to the phenomena of the given existence. Gadamer does no longer deal with the question of ‘the aesthetic’ inside the manner of the analytic way of life of current philosophy, nor does he concern himself with individual aesthetic pleasure. His approach to the aesthetic involvement is rooted within the phenomenological subculture: he is handling the location of art in our comprehension of the world.
It is Gadamer's inclination toward Heidegger's hermeneutics which dictates his own approach to beauty and truth. As Heidegger is thoroughly involved in the study of interpretation and understanding of the meaning, which is what makes up the very origin of hermeneutics, he introduced for the first time the ontological hermeneutics. As an existentialist, it comes as no surprise that Heidegger would relate one philosophy to the study of being. And that is exactly what he did, proclaiming that being and interpretation are inextricably linked almost to the point of identity. Thus approaching his idea through phenomenology, related to the individual experience, which would bring us closer to the truth.
And this is where Gadamer's theory comes to be, considering as he refers to beauty or "aesthetics" in no physical term but rather as a notion, it is this interpretation of the 'thing' (be it a play or an artwork) together in correlation with our existence which first dictates us a state of pre-judgement which paves the way toward understanding of the truth (a-truth). And it is this truth which we call beauty. However, making such a deduction we manage to raise three consequent questions:
What does Gadamer mean by "play"?
What does he mean by "understanding"?
What does he mean by "a-truth"?
Well, to address the first question we should firstly have a look at what Gadamer has written in his essay, page 7: "So long as art occupied a legitimate place in the world, it was clearly able to effect an integration between community, society, and the Church on the one hand and the self-understanding of the creative artist on the other. Our problem, however, is precisely the fact that this self-evident integration, and the universally shared understanding of the artist’s role that accompanies it, no longer exists." Continuing on this line, since the nineteenth century religion no longer constitutes a common ground for artists and an idea of what should now take that place as a new model for aesthetic perception has been widely discussed. As Hegel has also stated, 'art has become something of the past'. Even though it appears that Gadamer takes these theories to consideration, it is exactly the concept of "play" he introduced to us which provides an alternative these ideas.
He defines "play" as a communicative agent between "the game" and "the spectators" where there are no passive viewers. Both "the game" and the work of art require the spectator to play along with what they bring into being, as they both are forms of self-movement. It is the existence of "the spectator" in the present that makes it possible for the existence and communication of "the artwork" in this very present, because "the play" manages to absorb "the spectators", immersing him/her in the experience of art and maybe even transforming him/her but what his/her spectatorship brings into being.
Moreover, in order to try and give an answer to the second question we have to consequently analyze it together with the third question, as they are two parts of the same. What Gadamer believes, is that for one to arrive to a conclusion or truth, such a truth has to be achieved through conversation, or "the power of dialogue" as Socrates would say. As the conversation proceeds, the answers will as well show up as a function of the "fusion of horizons"between the different perspectives (or pre-judgements as mentioned earlier) of the participants in the conversation. This fusion is what Gadamer calls the Understanding. It is the answer to the question and thus the closest thing to the truth in such a way that both the participants and the "things" themselves generate both the question and the answer. The truth of the matter is therefore generated by by the things and participants of the conversation.
Nonetheless, another factor of big importance to Gadamer is the distance between the interpreter (the spectator) and the text (the work of art) in time. He believes that it is not a barrier of understanding but on the contrary that which enables it. And as such getting rid of any analogy regarding the justification of art at present. So when we try to understand a text (or artwork) we are not trying to figure out the original intent of the author but rather what it has to say to us and thus the notion of the "free beauty". Lastly here we have a function which expresses the extent to which the authors original intent and its time context together with the generated meaning of the contemporary context fuse or blend into the truth we know who many define as beauty.
Comments
Post a Comment