Being, clearing and humanism
29
Jun
In the context in which Heidegger wrote Being and Time,
it is what remains hidden within a whole, where being should emerge, this is appropriate to the discourse of modernity where there is a reduction to human material life, and a division between what it is subjective and objective in Being.
This fragmentation emerges only in one part, most of the time it is opposite to the entity to which the being belongs, explaining in a different way, making a joke: “the being of the entity”.
Being and being are intertwined, being is conditioned by being, since it has a broader sense, this broader definition Heidegger defined as Dasein, or being-there to say this fact that there is a cosmovision of being in relation to a context broader scope of your experience.
However, far from a solution to the paradox of modernity, what Heidegger called the manifestation of being through language, including poetics as one of the functions of language, making there an abode of being, which would preserve the ex-tactician naming in the clearing.
The clearing would be nothing more than the truth of being, that is, it would remove us from the abyss of our ex-sistent essence, and the clearing would give us back the “world” and language is the advent that reveals and clears up being itself, but Sloterdijk responding to its clearing in Heidegger’s Letters for Humanism, he makes an answer in the book Rules for the Human Park, saying of the failure of this clearing and of humanism.
This clearing is neither the habitat nor the environment, and this one finds itself in rupture with nature, where it identifies the failure of the human being as a shepherd of the being, whose essence would not be to take care of the sick, but to keep his flock in the clearing, the clearing is the open world and, in this case, the task is used in the being freely chosen and impregnating itself with the being itself.
Before advancing in the criticism, it is necessary to emphasize Sloterdijk’s praise of Heidegger, there is a praise of his criticism of Humanism, reconceptualizing it and seeking the essence of man in this system.
Sloterdijk’s starting point is Heidegger’s critique, where he seeks a better understanding of what man is within this humanism, and a greater understanding of the clearing.
Subjectivity is no longer a mere grammatical fundamental and becomes a foundation as a human representation, whether of its feelings or its essence, and of man in this system.
Sloterdijk’s starting point is Heidegger’s critique, where he seeks a better understanding of what man is within this humanism, and a greater understanding of the clearing.
Subjectivity is no longer a mere grammatical fundamental and becomes a foundation as a human representation, whether of its feelings or its essence, and thus the foundation becomes the self, thus modernity opens an object-subject relationship.
Everything, then, is for man, it is anthropocentric and the world opens up to domination, for science and technique to dominate it, grounding all knowledge, but what is the knowledge about Being.
By exchanging this vocabulary from humanism to his own (subjectivity) Heidegger states, according to Sloterdijk, that the school of domestication of man, which is really a school, the pedagogical project initiated by the Romans, is a failed school, domestication was not possible.
Two of Sloterdijk’s successes are an astonishment for the future of civilization, first a positive necessity that is co-immunity, the idea that only a joint defense of the Being overcomes the self, the other dangerous is that the domestication project has failed and the clearing is an imperative, not just a humanist narrative.
Sloterdijk says textually: “the history of the clearing cannot be developed only as a narrative of the arrival of human beings to the houses of languages” and from there he elaborates his anthropotechnics, will be our next topic.
SLOTERDIJK, P. (2000) Regras para o parque humano. (in portuguese) Trad. José Oscar de Almeida Marques, Brazil, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.
