Heidegger e a ciência

It is no accident that in a strict sense modern science’s self-critique is lacking today. It is not due to negligence or laziness on the part of the respective scientists. It is due to blindness determined by the destiny of the present age. This is where we get [the idea] that philosophy itself, insofar as it survives, is not lagging behind the sciences, but that it is lagging behind its own tradition. In inquisitive dialogue, philosophy is no longer able to put the matter of thinking itself into question.


Heidegger, “Zollikon Seminars”


Heidegger – o que são as lágrimas?

15095118_189199584874180_6886932324807031604_n“We will now try to move somewhat closer to the phenomenon of the body. In doing so, we are not speaking of a solution to the problem of the body. Much has already been gained merely by starting to see this problem. Once again we refer to the text by Professor Hegglin. Among other things, it notes: “Sadness cannot be measured, but the tears formed by sadness due to psychosomatic relations can be investigated quantitatively in various directions.” \et you can never actually measure tears. If you try to measure them, you measure a fluid and its drops at the most, but not tears. Tears can only be seen directly. Where do tears belong? Are they something somatic or psychical? They are neither the one, nor the other. Take another phenomenon: Someone blushes with shame and embarrassment. Can the blushing be measured? Blushing with shame cannot be measured. Only the redness can be measured, for instance, by measuring the circulation of blood. Then is blushing something somatic or something psychical? It is neither one nor the other. Phenomenologically speaking, we can easily distinguish between a face blushing with shame and, for instance, a face flushed with fever or as a result of going inside of a warm hut after a cold mountain night outside. All three kinds of blushing appear on the face, but they are very different from each other and are immediately distinguished in our everyday being-with and being-for each other. We can “see” from the respective situations whether someone is embarrassed, for instance, or flushed for some other reason. Take the phenomenon of pain and sadness. For instance, bodily pain and grief for the death of a relative both involve “pain.” What about these “pains’? Are they both somatic or are they both psychical? Or is only one of them somatic and the other psychical, or is it neither one nor the other? Continuar lendo