Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T12:09:30.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heidegger's Concept of Experience: Derrida's Interpretation of Hegel in Heidegger: The Question of Being and History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2021

Simon Gissinger
Simon Gissinger*
Affiliation:
Université Bordeaux Montaigne, France simon.gissinger@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

In 1971, answering a question concerning one of the main motifs of his works, Derrida declared that ‘if there were a definition of différance, it would be precisely the limit, the interruption, the destruction of the Hegelian “relève” [i.e. Aufhebung] wherever it operates’. It is apparent that such an approach to Hegel is indebted to Heidegger's program of a ‘destruction’ (Destruktion) of the history of ontology. But what does Derrida's reading of Hegel owe to Heidegger exactly? In this paper, I investigate this question and the genesis of Derrida's reading of Hegel more generally by looking into the interpretation which can be found in the 1964–65 lectures about Heidegger: The Question of Being and History. In the process of interpreting Heidegger, Derrida produces extensive comments about Hegel which document the early elaboration of his perception of the author of the Phenomenology of Spirit. Here, I focus on Hegel's conception of experience, which Derrida compares to Heidegger's understanding of the historicity of Dasein. As will become clear, however, this question involves the way Derrida presents the relationship between the two thinkers throughout these lectures. Specifically, I show that Derrida significantly bases his account of Heidegger's ‘destruction’ of Hegel's philosophy on the former's interpretation of the latter's concept of experience. By examining such an interpretation, I intend to challenge the way Derrida portrays Hegel and I argue as a result that it is questionable whether Heidegger's departure from Hegel can be taken to be as ‘radical’ as Derrida makes it seem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , August 2022 , pp. 194 - 219
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Hegel Society of Great Britain

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bouton, C. (2012), ‘La conception hégélienne du temps est-elle métaphysique? Retour sur le débat Hegel/Heidegger,’ in Kervégan, J.-F. and Mabille, B. (eds.), Hegel au présent. Une relève de la métaphysique?. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Bouton, C. (2020), ‘The Privilege of the Present: Time and Trace from Heidegger to Derrida’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 28:3: 370–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, J. (2020a), ‘From Gegenstand to Gegenstehenlassen: on the Meanings of Objectivity in Heidegger and Hegel’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 28:3: 390–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, J. (2020b), The Movement of Showing: Indirect Method, Critique, and Responsibility in Derrida, Hegel, and Heidegger. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1973), Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs, trans. Allison, D. B. and Garver, N.. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1981), Positions, trans. Bass, A.. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1982), ‘Ousia and grammè: Note on a Note from Being and Time’, in Margins of Philosophy, trans. Bass, A.. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1986), Glas, trans. Leavey, J. P. and Rand, R.. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1998), Of Grammatology, trans. Spivak, G. C.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (2005), Writing and Difference, trans. Bass, A.. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Dove, K. R. (1970), ‘Hegel's Phenomenological Method’, The Review of Metaphysics 23:4: 615–41.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (2016), Heidegger: The Question of Being and History, trans. G. Bennington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1966), Discourse On Thinking, trans. Anderson, J. M. and Hans Freund, E.. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1988), The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. Hofstadter, A.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1996), Being and Time, trans. Stambaugh, J.. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (2002), Off the Beaten Track, trans. Young, J. and Haynes, K.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2006a), ‘Time for Hegel’, The Hegel Bulletin 27:1–2: 125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2006b), The Opening of Hegel's Logic: From Being to Infinity. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2013), Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Of Times, Arrested, Resigned, Imagined: Temporality in Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida (2020), International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28:3.Google Scholar
Schülein, J.-G. (2016), Metaphysik und ihre Kritik bei Hegel und Derrida. Hamburg: Meiner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, P. (2010), ‘Wie kommt der Geist zur Erscheinung? Anmerkungen zur dialektischen Methode von Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes’ in Geist? Hegel-Jahrbuch 1: 116–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souche-Dagues, D. (1979), ‘Une exégèse heideggerienne: le temps chez Hegel d'après le § 82 de « Sein und Zeit »’, Revue de métaphysique et de morale 84:1: 101–20.Google Scholar
Tsagdis, G. (2020), ‘Time after History: Derrida's Two Readings of Heidegger’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 28:3: 317–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar