Bryan Magee talks to Hubert Dreyfus about Husserl and Heidegger (and then a bit about Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, too).
Came across this program on Youtube yesterday, and due to insomnia this morning, watched all 5 installments. Have been reading George Steiner’s _Martin Heidegger_, which is a good summary of MH’s philosophy and has a helpful (though not always clearly demarcated) preliminary run-through of terms, but the ‘Kehre’ or ‘turn’ that critics identify in MH’s thought hadn’t completely crystallized for me yet. After reading Steiner, the turn seemed to lie more not in the various dimensions of ‘beingquestion’ (Seinsfrage) itself (established in _Being and Time_) but in *how* we should go about asking the beingquestion. Perhaps it is precisely Steiner Dreyfus alludes to when he says the way critics grapple with the turn is very open-ended. I think Dreyfus’s interpretation of it as a move to historicizing the question–MH’s historicity–, i.e. looking at how Greeks perceived/experienced ‘being,’ how Christians did so, and *then* how we do so now in a modern age of technology (as opposed to only looking at modern being), is a much more satisfying characterization and also makes my readings make more sense. More and more, though, it seems to me that the earlier and later Heideggers are not irreconcilable. The question is still the same, it is just a matter of approach. Does one really have to choose between the pre-1935 MH or the post-1945 MH? And isn’t the former necessary for the latter?