Scholarly record
HEIDEGGER AND CARNAP – INCONSUMERABLE INTERACTIONS
Abstract
Rudolf Carnap, one of the most accomplished representatives of logical empiricism, finds himself in discussion with Heidegger in the most radical phase of his work. His radical, critical approach is significant for the syntactic period of Carnap's thought development. Heidegger is, according to Carnap, a philosopher who speaks out against the rules of grammatical rules. Heidegger does not perceive Carnap as a philosopher worthy of a long answer. There are only two Heidegger's responses to Carnap. In his intellectual life, Heidegger went through a stronger and more dynamic development than Carnap, whose shift was more continuous. The first response to Carnap came in the Kehre period. The second objection comes from the second period of Heidegger's creation. Carnap's can start the discussion in his most radical period of the work. It can be stated that the discussion was not constructive. These were thematically, paradigmatically and lexically unmatched approaches to philosophical problems.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References15
Carnap, R.: (1934). On the Character of Philosophical Problems, In: Philosophy of science 1, pp. 5 - 19
Carnap, R.: (1959). The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language. In: Ayer, A. J.; Logical positivism. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 60 – 81
Hanzel, I.: (2019). Neukončený projekt transparentnej intenzionálnej logiky, In: Filozofia 74 (2), pp. 126 – 138
Heidegger, M.: (1998). Postscript to What Is Metaphysics?, In: Heidegger, M. Pathmarks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231 – 238
Heiddeger, M.: (2002). Off the Beaten Track. J. Young and K. Haynes, ed. and trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 204.
Kim, Y. K.: (2010). Heidegger and the Analytic Philosophy – Carnap, Wittgenstein and Rorty, In: Sogang Journal of Philosophy 23, pp. 67 – 95
Luchte, J.: (2007). Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Carnap: Radical phenomenology, logical positivism, and the roots of the continental/analytic divide, In: Philosophy Today 51 (3), pp. 241 - 260
Perrin, C.: (2012). Carnap et Heidegger: L’Entente cordiale, In: Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie 59 (1), pp. 78 – 98
Sucharek, P.: (2011). Komentár k schéme časovosti v Bytà a čase (§§ 64 – 68), In: Cestami Heideggerovho myslenia. Pusté Úľany: Schola Philosophica, pp. 164 – 185
Valčo, M.: (2009). Alternative Viewpoint: Edwards and the World Religions, In: Understanding Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to America’s Theologian
Valčo, M., Boehme, A. J.: (2017). Christian faith and science can science enhance theology?, In: European Journal of Science and Theology 13 (3), pp. 89 – 97
Schmidt, M.: (2010). Causation and structural realism, In: Organon F 17 (4), pp. 508 – 521
Volek, P.: (2018). Methods of metaphysics and natural sciences: On their similarities and differences, In: Filozofia 73 (5), pp. 345 – 355
Zouhar, M.: (2004). Vznikla analytická filozofia?, In: Organon F 11 (2), pp. 202 – 207
GlombГДЌek, P.: (2014). The intention od Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (1): Forward and motto, In: Organon F (21), pp. 363 – 380
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.