Ehsan Karimi Torshizi; Ahmad Ali Heidari
Abstract
In early 20th century, a widespread tendency toward a philosophical anthropology was dominant over the intellectual space in Germany, and it was so deep and extensive in its influence that phenomenology had to react and take a stance against it. This initial stance appeared be an essential conflict of ...
Read More
In early 20th century, a widespread tendency toward a philosophical anthropology was dominant over the intellectual space in Germany, and it was so deep and extensive in its influence that phenomenology had to react and take a stance against it. This initial stance appeared be an essential conflict of a sort, so that Blumenberg coined the term “anthropological ban” regarding Husserl’s and Heidegger’s Phenomenologies. In this paper, we have tried to illustrate that such a confliction is neither essential nor absolute, meaning that it is quite legitimate to talk about a philosophical anthropology of a sort based on Husserl’s and Heidegger’s Phenomenologies. Thus, the plot and general characteristics of such a phenomenological anthropology, in terms of Heidegger's existential analysis of Dasein as a Fundamental ontology in his Sein und Zeit, has been depicted, and its fundamentally different anthropological pattern comparing with that of a traditional anthropology has also been demonstrated.
