Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran;

2 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran;

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 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.

Keywords

اسپیگلبرگ، هربرت، ۱۳۹۶، جنبش پدیدارشناسی  درآمدی تاریخی، ترجمه‌ی مسعود علیا، تهران: انتشارات مینوی خرد.
Blumenberg, Hans. )2006(. Beschreibung des Menschen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Breeur, Roland. )1994(. "Randbemerkungen Husserls zu Heideggers Sein und Zeit und Kant und das Problem tier Metaphysik," in: Husserl Studies 11, 3-63; for SZ: pp. 9-48.
Cabestan, Philippe. (2015). “Phénoménologie, anthropologie: Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre”, dans: Alter, Revue de phénoménologie, no 23: 226-242.
Cumming, Robert Denoon. (2001). Phenomenology and Deconstruction, Volume Three: Breakdown in Communication, University of Chicago Press. pp. 50-51.
Dastur, F. (2011). “La critique heideggérienne de l’anthropologisme”, Heidegger et la pensée à venir, Paris: Vrin, p. 82.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, MIT Press.
Heidegger, Martin. (1976). Wegmarken (1919–1961) (GA 9), hrsg. F.-W. von Herrmann, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
_____. (1977). Sein und Zeit (GA 2), hrsg. F.-W. von Herrmann, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
_____. (1991). Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (GA 3), hrsg. F.-W. von Herrmann, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Husserl, Edmund. (1989). Aufsätze und Vorträge 1922–1937 (Hua XXVII), hrsg. von Thomas Nenon and Hans‐Rainer Sepp, Dordrecht: Springer.
_____. (1994). “Notes marginales de Husserl à Être et temp”, Notes sur Heidegger, trad. N. Depraz, op. cit., p. 9 et sq.
_____. (1997). “Husserl’s Marginal Remarks in Martin Heidegger, Being and Time”, Newly edited from the original notes and translated by Thomas Sheehan, in: Psychological and Transcendental Phenomenology, and the Encounter with Heidegger (1927-1931), Ed. And Tr. By Thomas Sheehan and Richard Palmer, Springer Science & Business Media, 258ff.
Monod, J.-C. (2009). “L’interdit anthropologique” chez Husserl et Heidegger et sa transgression par Blumenberg”, dans: Revue germanique internationale, no10: 221-236.
Müller, Klaus. (2010). Glauben Fragen Denken, Band III: Selbstbeziehung und Gottesfrage, Münster: Aschendorff.
Wunsch, Matthias. (2018). “Vier Modelle des Menschseins”, in: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 66(4):471-487.