data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78e70/78e70fe19b61dde9bd49df6056d5db2c4fcb85f2" alt=""
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 1995
Pages: 579-587
Series: Phaenomenologica
ISBN (Undefined): 9780792335672
Full citation:
, "Heidegger's longest day", in: From phenomenology to thought, errancy, and desire, Berlin, Springer, 1995
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7dffa/7dffab55ad3ab890f71554f5c8367df17f466b5d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06505/065056aa5eb3b2545dd806cbd182cf9b00781d18" alt=""
Heidegger's longest day
twenty-five years later
pp. 579-587
in: Babette Babich (ed), From phenomenology to thought, errancy, and desire, Berlin, Springer, 1995Abstract
Twenty-five years have passed since William Richardson wrote in his paper, "Heidegger's Critique of Science:"1 "On the longest day he ever lived, Heidegger could never be called a philosopher of science." In saying that Heidegger "could never be called a philosopher of science," he did not mean that Heidegger's philosophy cannot address the problems of scientific knowledge. Rather he meant just that Heidegger himself failed to do so adequately, and for obvious reasons — he was not well versed in science. However, as Richardson put it, "[Heidegger] is a philosopher — an important one — and no genuine philosopher can afford to ignore the problems of science" (p. 511). The paper comprises three parts: 1) Heidegger's analysis of "science"; 2) Heidegger's critique of "science"; 3) comments on the above from the point of view of the writer, which take the form of setting forth challenges to Heidegger's analysis or his critique of "science."
Cited authors
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 1995
Pages: 579-587
Series: Phaenomenologica
ISBN (Undefined): 9780792335672
Full citation:
, "Heidegger's longest day", in: From phenomenology to thought, errancy, and desire, Berlin, Springer, 1995