tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post1565380966509919071..comments2024-03-27T08:38:29.990+01:00Comments on artefactphil: Graham Harman's misguided Heidegger-interpretationMichael Eldredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15312973352124078686noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-81767321564109257202014-05-18T11:37:52.435+02:002014-05-18T11:37:52.435+02:00Thanks for this addition. Yes, time is the crux. A...Thanks for this addition. Yes, time is the crux. Along with being (whose meaning is time), it has to be done away with. Re the subject/object split, Parmenides warned long ago not to cut off _noein_ (minding) from _einai_ (presencing).Michael Eldredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15312973352124078686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-47795072766700113702014-05-18T09:19:37.492+02:002014-05-18T09:19:37.492+02:00Thanks for this critique of Harman's Heidegger...Thanks for this critique of Harman's Heidegger analysis, which is used as background validation for his regressive ontology, but which is only rarely discussed on its own merits. I think you are right to maintain that Harman remains inside a subject/object problematic and so gives a misinterpretation of "withdrawal", which he regards as the opposite of "access", itself presented as the model of knowledge. So knowledge, which had been freed from the conception of a subject's relation to an object, is once again subsumed under this humanist category and then found wanting. Attunement is then travestied in subject/object terms as "correlation", and the myth of Heidegger-the-correlationist (in plain terms, idealist) is promulgated. The most amazing result of this caricaturing of Heidegger so as to "go beyond" is that Harman concludes that time is unreal, all the while accusing other ontologies of being incapable of explaining change.Terence Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14936707523015565137noreply@blogger.com