| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nick Lopez
Newcomer
1 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 18 2012 : 3:10:57 PM
|
During class today, we talked about building and dwelling. We said that to be capable of building, we must first be capable of dwelling, and that to be capable of dwelling, we must first be capable of thinking. In part II of "Building, Dwelling, Thinking", Heidegger said, with regard to the bridge he uses as an example there, "It does not just connect banks that are already there. The banks emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the stream" (150). I'm not sure I understand what he means by this. From a engineer's point of view, the bridge was built to fix a problem. The problem in this case, is that people couldn't get across the river. Doesn't this give us evidence of the existence of the banks before the bridge has even been thought of?
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Apr 19 2012 : 07:57:54 AM
|
We did say, Nick, (or we saw that Heidegger says) that to be capable of building, we must first be capable of dwelling. Heidegger says this very explicitly: "Only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build" ("BDT" 157, repeated word for word on 158). I don't think we said—or that Heidegger himself ever says—that to be capable of dwelling we must first be capable of thinking. What I can remember him saying in "Building Dwelling Thinking" that's relevant to your opening remark here is this: "[T]hinking itself belongs to dwelling in the same sense as building, although in a different way" (158). What this suggests is actually the reverse of what you've claimed we said, namely that only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we think.
As regards those banks: Heidegger would never deny that there are "indifferent border strips of dry land" adjacent to the stream before the bridge is built; all he maintains is that these aren't banks—don't exist as banks, don't have the status of banks—without the bridge. His point here is essentially the same sort of point as the one he makes when he says that the bridge's location doesn't exist as a location before the bridge is built: "The location is not already there before the bridge is. Before the bridge stands, there are, of course, many spots along the stream that can be occupied by something. One of them proves [we might say: "emerges as" or "turns out to be"] a location, and does so because of the bridge. Thus the bridge does not first come to a location to stand in it; rather, a location comes into existence [i.e., begins to exist as a location] only by virtue of the bridge" (151-152). |
 |
|
|
Amanda Marston
Moderator
12 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 12:52:25 PM
|
| Amanda, can you cite chapter and verse—the specific passages in "Building Dwelling Thinking" that led you to think what you thought? It'd be really useful if you could. |
|
|
|
Amanda Marston
Moderator
12 Posts |
|
|
Amanda Marston
Moderator
12 Posts |
|
|
Emily Razavi
Moderator
4 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - May 03 2012 : 09:22:25 AM
|
| Emily, what do you mean when you say: "We connect that the bridge is not necessarily a location?" I've hesitated to edit this because I really don't understand it at all. Let me make a guess: do you mean, perhaps, that we can see that the place that's going to be occupied by the bridge isn't a location yet and won't be until the bridge is built? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Building and Dwelling
