Heidegger On Ontological Education.pdf

Inquiry ,44,243–68

HeideggeronOntologicalEducation,or:

HowWeBecomeWhatWeAre

IainThomson

UniversityofNewMexico

Heideggerprescientlydiagnosedthecurrentcrisisinhighereducation.Contemporary

theoristslikeBillReadingsextendandupdateHeidegger’scritique,documentingthe

increasinginstrumentalization,professionalization,vocationalization,corporatization,

andtechnologizationofthemodernuniversity,thedissolutionofitsunifyingand

guidingideals,and,consequently,thegrowinghyper-specializationandruinous

fragmentationofitsdepartments.UnlikeHeidegger,however,thesecriticsdonot

recognizesuchdisturbingtrendsasinterlockingsymptomsofanunderlying

ontologicalproblemandsotheyprovidenopositivevisionforthefutureofhigher

education.Byunderstandingoureducationalcrisis‘ontohistorically’,Heideggeris

abletodevelopanalternative,ontologicalconceptionofeducationwhichhehopes

willhelpbringaboutarenaissanceoftheuniversity.Inaprovocativereadingof

Plato’sfamous‘allegoryofthecave’,Heideggerexcavatesandappropriatesthe

originalWesterneducationalidealofPlatonic paideia ,outliningthepedagogyofan

ontologicaleducationcapableofdirectlychallengingthe‘technological

understandingofbeing’heholdsresponsibleforourcontemporaryeducationalcrisis.

Thisnotionofontologicaleducationcanbestbeunderstoodasaphilosophical

perfectionism,are-essentializationofthecurrentlyemptyidealofeducational

‘excellence’bywhichHeideggerbelieveswecanreconnectteachingtoresearchand,

ultimately,reunifyandrevitalizetheuniversityitself.

I.Introduction

Heideggersoughttodeconstructeducation.Ratherthandenythis,weshould

simplyrejectthepolemicalreductionof‘deconstruction’( Destruktion )to

‘destruction’( Zersto¨rung )andinsteadbeclearthatthegoalofHeidegger’s

deconstructionofeducationisnotto destroy ourtraditionalWestern

educationalinstitutionsbutto‘loosenup’this‘hardenedtraditionand

dissolvetheconcealmentsithasengendered’inorderto‘recover’fromthe

beginningoftheeducationaltraditionthose‘primordialexperiences’which

havefundamentallyshapeditssubsequenthistoricaldevelopment. 1 Infact,

Heidegger’sdeconstructionsaresofarfrombeingsimpledestructionsthat

notonlydotheyalwaysincludeapositiveaswellasanegativemoment,but

thisnegativemoment,inwhichthesedimentedlayersofdistorting

interpretationsareclearedaway,isinvariablyintheserviceofthepositive

moment,inwhichsomethinglongconcealedisrecovered.Tounderstandhow

thisdoubledeconstructivestrategyoperatesinthecaseofeducation,then,we

needsimplyclarifyanddevelopthesetwomoments:Whatdistortionsdoes

# 2001Taylor&Francis

244 IainThomson

Heidegger’sdeconstructionofeducationseektocutthrough?And,more

importantly,whatdoesitseektorecover?Letusanswerthissecond,more

important,question Ž rst.

Throughahermeneuticexcavationofthefamous‘allegoryofthecave’in

Plato’s Republic – thetextualsitewherepedagogicaltheoryemergedfrom

thenoondayshadowsofOrphicmysteryandProtagoreanobscurityinorderto

institute,forthe Ž rsttime,the‘Academy’assuch – Heideggerseekstoplace

beforeoureyesthemostin � uentialunderstandingof‘education’inWestern

history:Plato’sconceptionof paideia .Heideggermaintainsthataspectsof

Plato’sfoundingpedagogicalvisionhaveexertedanunparalleledin � uence

onoursubsequenthistoricalunderstandingsof‘education’(itsnature,

procedures,andgoals),whileother,evenmoreprofoundaspectshavebeen

forgotten.Theseforgottenaspectsof paideia arewhathisdeconstructionof

educationseekstorecover.Back,then,toour Ž rstquestion:What

hermeneuticmisconceptionsordistortionsstandinthewayofthisrecovery

andsomust Ž rstbeclearedaway?Heidegger’sfocushereisona

misconceptionabouteducationwhichalsoformspartofthelegacyof

Plato’scave,adistortionembodiedinandperpetuatedbythoseinstitutions

whichre � ectandtransmitourhistoricalunderstandingofeducation.

Now,onemightexpectHeidegger’sassessmentofthefutureprospectsfor

oureducationalinstitutionstobeunremittinglypessimistic,giventhathislater

‘ontohistorical’( seinsgeschichtliche )perspectiveallowedhimtodiscernso

prescientlythoseinterlockingtrendswherebyweincreasinglyinstrumenta-

lize,professionalize,vocationalize,corporatize,andultimately technologize

education.Heidegger’spowerfulcritiqueofthewayinwhichoureducational

institutionshavecometoexpressanihilistic,‘technologicalunderstandingof

being’willbedevelopedinsectionII.Butbeforeassumingthatthisdiagnosis

ofeducationamountstoadeathsentence,weneedtorecallthepointwith

whichwebegan:Heidegger’sdeconstructivestrategiesalwayshave two

moments.Thus,whenheseekstorecovertheontologicalcoreofPlatonic

paideia ,hisintentisnotonlytotracethetechnologizationofeducationbackto

anontologicalambiguityalreadyinherentinPlato’sfoundingpedagogical

vision(therebydemonstratingthehistorical contingency ofthesedisturbing

educationaltrendsandsolooseningtheirgriponus).Moreimportantly,he

alsomeanstoshowhowforgottenaspectsoftheoriginalPlatonicnotionof

paideia remaincapableofinspiringheretoforeunthoughtofpossibilitiesfor

the future ofeducation.Indeed,onlyHeidegger’shopeforthefutureofour

educationalinstitutionscanexplainhisotherwiseentirelymysteriousclaim

thathis paideia ‘interpretation’is‘madenecessaryfromoutofafutureneed

[ auseinerku¨nftigenNotnotwendige ]’. 2

Thisoracularpronouncementsoundsmysterious,yetIbelieveHeidegger’s

deconstructionofeducationismotivatedentirelybythis‘futureneed’.I

submitthatthisfutureneedisdouble;likethedeconstructionmobilizedinits

HeideggeronOntologicalEducation 245

service,itcontainsapositiveaswellasanegativemoment.Thesetwo

momentsaresoimportantthattherestofthisessaywillbedevotedtotheir

explication.Negatively,weneedacriticalperspectivewhichwillallowusto

grasptheunderlyinghistoricallogicaccordingtowhichoureducational

institutionshavedevelopedandwillcontinuetodevelopifnothingisdoneto

altertheircourse.AswewillseeinsectionII,Heideggerwasoneofthe Ž rst

todiagnosecorrectlywhatagrowingnumberofincisivecriticsof

contemporaryeducationhavesubsequentlycon Ž rmed:Wenowstandin

themidstofanhistorical crisis inhighereducation.Heidegger’sprofound

understandingofthe nature ofthiscrisis–hisinsightthatitcanbeunderstood

asatotaleclipseofPlato’soriginaleducationalideal–revealsthe

ontohistoricaltrajectoryleadinguptoourcurrenteducationalcrisisand,

moreimportantly,illuminatesapathwhichmightleadusoutofit.

Thisisfortunate,sincethegravityofHeidegger’sdiagnosisimmediately

suggestsacomplementary, positive need:Weneedanalternativetoour

contemporaryunderstandingofeducation,analternativecapableoffavorably

resolvingoureducationalcrisisbyavertingthetechnologicaldissolutionof

thehistoricalessenceofeducation.Heidegger’shopeisthis:Sincean

ambiguityattheheartofPlato’soriginalunderstandingofeducationlent

itselftoanhistoricalmisunderstandinginwhichtheessenceofeducationhas

beenobscuredandisnowindangerofbeingforgotten,thedeconstructive

recoveryofthislong-obscuredessenceofeducationcannowhelpusenvision

awaytorestoresubstancetotheincreasinglyformalandemptyidealsguiding

contemporaryeducation.Itthusmakesperfectsensethatthisneedfora

positivealternativeleadsHeideggerbacktoPlato’scave.Retracinghissteps

insectionIII,Ireconstruct‘theessenceofeducation’thatHeideggerseeksto

recoverfromtheshadowsofhistory,thereby � eshingouthispositivevision.

InsectionIV,Iconsiderbrie � yhowthisre-ontologizationofeducationmight

helpusbegintoenvisionapathleadingbeyondourcontemporaryeducational

crisis.

II.Heidegger’sOntohistoricalCritiqueoftheTechnologizationof

Education

The Ž rstaspectofour‘futureneed’isforacriticalperspectivewhichwill

allowustodiscerntheunderlyinglogicthathaslongguidedthehistorical

developmentofoureducationalinstitutions,aperspectivewhichwillrender

visiblethedevelopmentaltrajectorytheseinstitutionscontinuetofollow.As

intimatedabove,Heideggermaintainsthathis‘historyofbeing’( Seins-

geschichte )providespreciselythisperspective.Asheputsit,‘theessenceof

truthandthekindsoftransformationsitundergoes Ž rstmakepossible[the

historicalunfoldingof]“education”initsbasicstructures’. 3 Heideggermeans

246 IainThomson

bythisthatthehistoryofbeing makespossible thehistoricaldevelopmentof

oureducationalinstitutions,althoughtoseethiswemustcarefullyunpack

thisinitiallypuzzlingreferenceto‘theessenceoftruthandthekindsof

transformationsitundergoes’.

1. FromtheEssenceofTruthtotheHistoryofBeing

Heidegger’spronouncementthattheessenceoftruth transforms sounds

paradoxical;howcananessence change ?Thiswillseemimpossibleto

someonelikeKripke,whoholdsthatanessenceisapropertyanentity

possessesnecessarily,thereferentofa‘rigiddesignator’theextensionof

whichis Ž xedacrossallpossibleworlds. 4 Theparadoxdisappears,however,

oncewerealizethatHeideggertoouses‘essence’( Wesen )asatechnicalterm,

albeitquitedifferentlyfromKripke.Tounderstand‘essence’inphrasessuch

as‘theessenceoftruth’and‘theessenceoftechnology’,Heideggerexplains,

wecannotconceiveof‘essence’thewaywehavebeendoingsincePlato,as

what‘ permanently endures’,forthatmakesitseemasifby‘essence’‘we

meansomemythologicalabstraction’.Instead,Heideggerinsists,weneedto

thinkof‘essence’asa verb ,asthewayinwhichthings‘essence’( west )or

‘remaininplay’( imSpielbleibt ). 5 InHeidegger’susage,‘essence’picksout

theextensionofanentityunfoldingitselfinhistoricalintelligibility.

Otherwiseput,Heideggerunderstands‘essence’intermsof being ,andsince

beingisnotarealpredicate(asKantshowed),thereislittlelikelihoodthatan

entity’s‘essence’canbepickedoutbyasingle, Ž xedpredicateorunderlying

property(assubstancemetaphysicsassumes).Rather,forHeidegger

‘essence’simplydenotesthe historical wayinwhichanentitycomesto

revealitselfontologicallyandbeunderstoodby Dasein . 6 Accordingly,

‘essence’mustbeunderstoodintermsofthe‘ek-sistence’of Da-sein ,thatis,

intermsof‘beingset-outintothedisclosednessofbeings’. 7

In‘OntheEssenceofTruth’(1929),Heideggerappliesthishistorical

understandingof‘essence’to truth ,contendingfamously(ifnolongerterribly

controversially)thattheoriginalhistorical‘essenceoftruth’isnotsimply

‘unforgottenness’( Unvergessenheit ,aliteraltranslationoftheoriginalGreek

wordfor‘truth’: Aletheia– the alpha -privative‘un-’plus Lethe ,the

mythological‘riverofforgetting’),butphenomenological‘un-concealedness’

( Un-verborgenheit )moregenerally.Historically,‘truth’ Ž rstrefersto

revealedness or phenomenologicalmanifestation ratherthantoaccurate

representation;the‘locusoftruth’isnotoriginallythecorrespondenceofan

assertiontoastateofaffairs,buttheantecedentfactthatthereissomething

there towhichtheassertionmightcorrespond.Soconceived,the‘essenceof

truth’isa‘revealedness’fullyco-extensionalwith Dasein ’s‘existence’,the

basicfactofour‘standing-out’( ek-sistere )historicallyintophenomenolo-

gicalintelligibility.‘Theessenceoftruth’thusreferstothewayinwhichthis

HeideggeronOntologicalEducation 247

‘revealedness’takesshapehistorically,namely,asaseriesofdifferent

ontological constellationsofintelligibility .Itisnotsurprising,then,that

Heidegger Ž rstbegantoelaboratehis‘historyofbeing’in‘OntheEssenceof

Truth’;forhim‘theessenceoftruth’ is ‘thehistoryofbeing’.

Ofcourse,suchstrongclaimsabouttheradicallyhistoricalcharacterofour

concepts(evencherishedconceptslike‘essence’,‘truth’,‘history’,‘concept’,

and‘being’)tendtomakephilosophersnervous.WhenHeideggerhistoricizes

ontologybyre-rootingitinthehistoricalexistenceof Dasein ,howdoeshis

accountavoidsimplydissolvingintelligibilityintothe � uxoftime?

Heidegger’sanswerissurprising;itisthemetaphysicaltraditionthat

preventsintelligibilityfromdissolvingintoapuretemporal � ux.Indeed,

carefulreaderswillnoticethatwhenHeideggerwritesthat‘ek-sistent,

disclosive Da-sein possessesthehumanbeingsooriginarilythatonly it

securesforhumanitythatdistinctiverelatednessto thetotalityofbeingsas

such which Ž rstgroundsallhistory’,heissubtlyinvokinghisaccountofthe

wayinwhichmetaphysicsgroundsintelligibility.Unfortunately,the

complexityofHeidegger’sidiosyncraticunderstandingofWesternmeta-

physicsas ontotheology ,coupledwithhisseeminglystrongantipathyto

metaphysics,hastendedtoobscuretheunparalleledprideofplaceheinfact

assignstometaphysicsinthehistoricalconstruction,contestation,and

maintenanceofintelligibility.Putsimply,Heideggerholdsthatour

metaphysicians’ ontological understandingsofwhatentitiesare‘assuch’

groundintelligibilityfromtheinside-out(asitwere),whiletheir theological

understandingsofthewayinwhichthe‘totality’ofbeingsexist

simultaneouslysecuretheintelligibleorderfromtheoutside-in.Western

history’ssuccessiveconstellationsofintelligibilityarethus‘doubly

grounded’inaseriesofontotheologicallystructuredunderstandingsof‘the

beingofbeings’( dasSeindesSeienden ),understandings,thatis,ofboth what

and how beings are ,orof‘thetotalityofbeingsassuch’(asHeideggerputsit

above). 8

Thisaccountanswersourworry;foralthoughnoneoftheseontotheolo-

gicalgroundshasservedthehistoryofintelligibilityasanunshakeable

‘foundation’( Grund ),norhaveanyofthemajorontotheologiesinstantly

givenwaylikeagroundless‘abyss’( Abgrund ).Rather,eachontotheologyhas

serveditshistoricalconstellationofintelligibilityasan Ungrund ,‘aperhaps

necessaryappearanceofground’,thatis,asthatpointatwhichontological

inquirycomestoarest. 9 Becauseeachontotheologyservesforatimeasthe

pointwhere‘thespadeturns’(asWittgensteinputit),thehistoryof

intelligibilityhastakentheformofaseriesofrelativelydurable,overlapping

historical‘epochs’ratherthaneitherasinglemonolithicunderstandingof

what-isoraformlessontological � ux. 10 Thusmetaphysics,byrepeatedly

supplyingintelligibilitywithdualontotheologicalanchors,isable‘tohold

back’( epoche )the � oodwatersofintelligibilityforatime – thetimeofan

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: