海德格尔的“基础存在论”是“哲学人类学”吗？

王庆节

PDF
Cite
Share

facebook

twitter

google

linkedin

August 2019

Article Contents

Citation: Qingjie WANG. Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?[J]. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(8): 5-12. shu

Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?

Qingjie WANG

Abstract

In the well-known Davos debate, Cassirer charges against Heidegger in saying that Heidegger’s " Kant’s Interpretation” and his " fundamental ontology” belong still to philosophical anthropology and relativism. The present essay attempts to explain and to argue, through a detailed textual reading and analysis of a key paragraph in the " records of the debate,” that Heidegger’s existential analysis of Dasein should be seen as a re-opening of the metaphysical problematic in our contemporary age. It does not essentially belong to any kind of philosophical anthropology. Rather, it opens, by the way of asking the problem or the question of Being itself, a real possibility of going beyond and overcoming all the traditional philosophical anthropologies. In contrast, Cassirer’s criticism against Heidegger’s ontological Kant’s interpretation and his following the Neo-Kantian epistemological way of interpretation of Kant, make himself still staying on an ontic level of philosophical thinking and thus finally falling back into a trap of philosophical anthropology. Because of this, Heidegger concludes that Cassirer cannot catch and understand the real significance of Kant’s questioning of the metaphysical problem and of his laying the very ground for the real metaphysics of Being.
- Heidegger,
- Kant,
- fundamental ontology,
- philosophical anthropology,
- problem of metaphysics
References
Access
1. [1]
  NI Liangkang . The Philosophy of History of “New Idealism” after Hegel: Neo-Hegelianism. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(7): 12-22.
2. [2]
  ZHANG Yahui , Xia Dao Cai Rang . Mandala and Shambhala: An Anthropological Analysis of the Origin Myth for the Ches-pa Tribe. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(1): 158-169.
3. [3]
  HE Lei . What Is Kant's “Problem of the Thing-in-Itself”——With a Concurrent Critique of Mou Zongsan's Assertion and Li Minghui's Defense. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(3): 31-40.
4. [4]
  LIN Shangli . China's Mission in Constructing Original Theories and Its Methodological Foundation. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(7): 5-11.
5. [5]
  WEN Jun . From Technical Tokens to Social Tokens: the Ontological Construction of Token Sociology. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(8): 145-156.
6. [6]
  WAN Yong , LI Yalan . Realizing the Function of Copyright Law in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(7): 104-116.
7. [7]
  WANG Qian . AI-Generated Content and Copyright Liability: Paradoxes and Resolutions. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(8): 118-132.
8. [8]
  RAN Gaoran . The Evolution and Game of Property Systems——On the Paradigm Choice for Data Property. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(7): 117-128.
9. [9]
  WANG Xiaoyang . The Normative Dimension of Animal Consciousness——The Later Wittgenstein on Animal Minds and Its Contemporary Implications. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(6): 16-27.
10. [10]
  YANG Dian , DONG Shuhao . The Social Construction of Economic Value——Evidence from Financial Markets, with a Discussion on Building a Valuation System with Chinese Characteristics. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(1): 131-146.
11. [11]
  LEI Lei . Methodological Standpoint of Digital Jurisdiction: Functionalism, or Normativism?. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(1): 108-119.
12. [12]
  HU Jun . Three Dimensions of Aesthetic Value from the Perspective of Neuroaesthetics——On the Essence of Beauty and Other Issues. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(8): 184-194.
13. [13]
  YING Qi . Hegel's Conception of Reconciliation and the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(7): 23-31.
14. [14]
  SU Tao . The Variations of Lyricism: On Cinematic Adaptations of Shen Congwen's Works in the 1950s. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(3): 185-193.
15. [15]
  GAO Jianping . Philosophical Reflections on Beauty. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(1): 170-179.
16. [16]
  HE Jun . Confucius's Paradigm Shaping of Chinese Philosophy. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(8): 56-69.
17. [17]
  XU Yong . Community Consolidation through Institutions: An Analysis of the Micro-institutions of Small-Scale Groups. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(3): 77-90.
18. [18]
  DING Huiping . Invisible Governance and the Rebuilding of Local Social Order: A Historical Sociology Analysis of Qi Biaojia's Famine Relief Action in Late Ming Dynasty. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(3): 143-154.
19. [19]
  SHI Dan , LI Peng . The Least-Cost Path for Energy Use in the Process of Modernization——Scenario Analysis and Theoretical Examination. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(1): 45-58.
20. [20]
  HU Yiqing , MA Zhihao , ZONG Yixiang . A Decade Review and Evaluation of the Development in the Discipline of Journalism and Communication (2009—2018)——Analysis Based on the Comprehensive Index of Humanities and Social Sciences. Academic Monthly, 2026, 58(6): 206-216.

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Entire Issue PDF

Article Metrics

Article views: 7708 Times PDF downloads: 59 Times Cited by: 0 Times

Metrics

PDF Downloads(59)
Abstract views(7708)
HTML views(1504)

Latest
Most Read
Most Cited

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?

Qingjie WANG

Available Online: 2019-08-01

Abstract: In the well-known Davos debate, Cassirer charges against Heidegger in saying that Heidegger’s " Kant’s Interpretation” and his " fundamental ontology” belong still to philosophical anthropology and relativism. The present essay attempts to explain and to argue, through a detailed textual reading and analysis of a key paragraph in the " records of the debate,” that Heidegger’s existential analysis of Dasein should be seen as a re-opening of the metaphysical problematic in our contemporary age. It does not essentially belong to any kind of philosophical anthropology. Rather, it opens, by the way of asking the problem or the question of Being itself, a real possibility of going beyond and overcoming all the traditional philosophical anthropologies. In contrast, Cassirer’s criticism against Heidegger’s ontological Kant’s interpretation and his following the Neo-Kantian epistemological way of interpretation of Kant, make himself still staying on an ontic level of philosophical thinking and thus finally falling back into a trap of philosophical anthropology. Because of this, Heidegger concludes that Cassirer cannot catch and understand the real significance of Kant’s questioning of the metaphysical problem and of his laying the very ground for the real metaphysics of Being.

HTML

Relative (20)

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Return

Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?

Abstract

References

Access

Article Metrics

Metrics

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Is Heidegger’s Fundamental Ontology A Philosophical Anthropology?

HTML

目录