Abstract
This paper discusses how the Heideggerian concept of understanding (Verstehen) is typically equated with the notion of know-how, particularly in pragmatist interpretations of Heidegger’s work. The relevance of G. Ryle’s thought in the development of the philosophical notion of know-how is well known. The first part of this article shows that, in despite of some general similarities, the Heideggerian notion of understanding and Ryle’s notion of know-how differ in fundamental aspects. The second part discusses some of the relevant appraisals of Brandom’s interpretation of the Heideggerian Verstehen. The third part considers and discusses Okrent’s pragmatist interpretation of Heidegger’s notion. Finally, the article shows that this reading has a limited scope as the modal distinction between authentic and unauthentic understanding becomes irrelevant.
References
Brandom, Robert. The Tales of the mighty Dead. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2002.
Carl, Wolfgang. The First-Person Point of View. Berlín/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014.
Carnap, Rudolf. “Die Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache”. Erkenntnis, vol. 2, n.º 1, 1931, pp. 219–241.
Crowell, Steven. Normativity and Phenomenology in Husserl and Heidegger. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013.
Frede, Dorothea. “Heidegger's Pragmatism: Understanding, Being, and the Critique of Metaphysics by Mark Okrent”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 50, n.º 3. 1990, pp. 619-624.
Friedman, Michael. A parting of the Ways. Chicago: Open Court, 2000.
Gethmann, Carl. Vom Bewusstsein zum Handeln. Múnich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2011.
Gethmann, Carl. Erkennen und Handeln. Heidegger im phänomenologischen Kontext. Berlín/Nueva York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.
Guignon, Charles. “Authenticity and the question of Being”. Heidegger Authenticity and the Self. Ed. por D. McManus. Nueva York: Routledge, 2015. 8-20.
Harman, Graham. Tool-being, Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Illinois: Open Court, 2002.
Harris, Joshua. “Univocity and Analogy: a comparative Study of Gilbert Ryle and Martin Heidegger”. Diametros, n° 34, 2012, pp. 34-50.
Heidegger, Martin. Sein und Zeit. Tubinga: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2006.
Heidegger, Martin. Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs. Fráncfort del Meno: Vittorio Klostermann, 1979.
Murray, Michael. “Heidegger and Ryle: Two Versions of Phenomenology”. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 27, n.º1, 1973, 88-111.
Okrent, Mark. Heidegger’s Pragmatism, Understanding, Being and the Critique of Metaphysics; Nueva York: Cornell UP, 1988.
Okrent, Mark. “Intending the Intender: Why Heidegger Is Not Davidson”. Heidegger Authenticity and Modernity: Essays in Honor of Hubert Dreyfus, vol. 1. Ed. por M. Wrathall y J. Malpas. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. 279-301.
Okrent, Mark. “The ‘I think’ and the For-The-Sake-of-Which”. Trascendental Heidegger. Ed. por S. Crowell y J. Malpas. California: Standford UP, 2007. 151-168.
Okrent, Mark. “On Layer Cakes: Heidegger´s Normative Pragmatism Revisited”. Pragmatic Perspectives in Phenomenology. Ed. por Ondrej Svec y Jakub Capek. Nueva York: Tylor and Francis, 2017. 21-38.
Penelas, Federico. “Recepciones pragmatistas de Martin Heidegger”. Areté, vol. 23, n.º 1, 2011, pp. 109-124.
Pippin, Robert. “Neccesary Conditions for the Possibility of What Isn’t: Heidegger on Failed Meaning”. Trascendental Heidegger. Ed. por S. Crowell y J. Malpas) California: Standford UP, 2007. 199-214.
Rorty, Richard. The Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979.
Rorty, Richard. “Metaphilosophical difficulties of linguistic Philosophy”. The linguistic Turn. Essays in Philosophical Method. Ed. por R. Rorty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. 1-39.
Rorty, Richard. “Heidegger, Contingency and Pragmatism”. Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. Nueva York: Routledge, 2009.
Ryle, Gilbert. “Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit”. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, vol. 1, n.º 3, 1970, pp. 3-13.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista de humanidades (Santiago. En línea)