Heidegger took many concepts from Husserl, placing him on the edge of Hermeneutic phenomenology. At the same time, Heidegger understood the uselessness of developing a purist method because of his life philosophy. Phenomenological methods are never pure because they are interpretations developed by researchers who are not recognized culturally. History, just like the discussion of language in previous chapters, is accompanied by underlying prejudice. Heidegger believes that humans can only understand around their “fundamental and prejudicial pre-understanding” (page 89). When executing an analysis, a human first projects his prejudices, setting an already biased canvas.
According to Heidegger, this is an inescapable conclusion, which precludes any final purist attitude. We are no longer using phenomenology to transcend above history. Instead, using Heidegger’s method, we find ourselves already within our historical and cultural background and can only make analytical conclusions that are appropriate. We are expected to have biases because without the existence of the world, there would be nothing to separate from. Thus, our existence in the world is a pre-condition. Heidegger reminds us that we are making analytical decisions given our historical placement.
Heidegger never finished his study on “Being”, but determined early on that its importance has been forgotten in Western Philosophy. “Being”, however universal, only exists as an issue for man because he is the only one who can interpret it. The relationship between man and “Being” is circular, as man can interpret “Being”, but such a power is originally stemmed from “Being”. “…the nature of human existence is already formulated to some degree beforehand” (page 104). The analysis of “Being”, is a continuous task because there are already many factors that pre-exist. This idea is significant because it marks the importance of having some knowledge of the past in order to make sense of the present. In order to understand the concept of ‘Being”, “man, must be intelligible and comprehensible” (page 105).
Thus man must have a grasp on logos—Greek word for words—in reference to man’s ability to use language. But what happens when man’s access to phainomenon and logos are removed? Here, we are introduced to Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”, where man exists in a “cave of ignorance” (page 106). Man is essentially stripped of all cultural understanding to live in a cave with no light. He is exposed to the outside world and sunlight for the first time in his later years.
As we further our philosophical understanding of Western Civilization, I can only wonder about the word “truth”. Throughout the text, we are given knowledge: concepts are explained, facts are told to us. How can we understand and/or know what truth is if the only truth we know is what we have been exposed to?
Heidegger believes we should give “freedom” to the object of interest “in order to let it show itself as it is in its Being” (page 109). So far, setting music “free”, has lead us down many roads. In some cases, the composition, the performance, and/or the gesture have been successful. In others, there is definitely some lack in quality. One might say we should apply the basic methodology of language and philosophy to better understand our craft. According to philosophical ideas, language, or logos, is a basic, human characteristic that makes us unique. And according to Dr. Ferrara’s earlier chapters, music cannot be considered a language because it is not concrete. Where do we go from here?
No comments:
Post a Comment