Yoko Arisaka, Hubert Dreyfus and Martin Heidegger

I’ve read bits of Being and Time, and I’ve found it to be utter gibberish. Well, actually I’m not even confident in saying that. I have repeatedly failed to find any thesis in it; it seems to me to consist of all the connective tissue of argument but I have no idea where the organs are.

Dreyfus I’ve found to be very nearly as opaque as Heidegger himself (although this might help: the man speaking rather than writing). I can at least detect some direction in Dreyfus, even if his terminology, his assertions and his leaps bewilder me. My experience of reading Dreyfus is that I repeatedly fake it through a page or two, hoping that something concrete will come along to glue all the bits of argument together that he’s thrown into my brain, and then he’ll hit me with something that instead makes me realise I haven’t been following him at all.

So I am enormously grateful to Yoko Arisaka, whose papers on the spatiality of Being and Time are lucid, understandable and follow clear paths of argumentation. Who supplies information I can actually take away and think about.

Is it Heidegger? I don’t know, and I don’t really care. It’s certainly interesting in its own right. I shall just be careful to cite her as Arisaka, an original thinker, based (as they say in Hollywood) on Heidegger.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: