Engin Yurt

Heidegger‘in burada çevirisi sunulan metin onun ikinci dönem çalışmaları arasında yer alır. Heidegger‘in daha çok Kehre terimi ile anılan düşünme ve felsefe anlayışındaki değişimin ardından felsefe tarihinde kendine yer etmiş isimlerden biri olan Nietzsche üzerine felsefi düşünmesini ortaya koyması açısından bu çalışması önemlidir. Nietzsche‘nin dünyaya, insana ve yaşama dair görüşlerinin merkezinde bulunan bir imge olarak onun Zerdüşt karakterini ve bu karakter üzerinden Nietzsche‘nin görüşlerini ele alıp kendi felsefi sorgulamasının bir konusu yapması dolayısıyla hem Heidegger‘in ikinci dönemdeki düşünme tarzının hem de Nietzsche‘nin özgün bir felsefi okumasının bir örneği olarak dikkate değer bir çalışmadır.

In here, philosophical-literate thinking on the way is mainly tried. On one side, making a philosophical analysis of Heraclitus’ fragment 60 is aimed. The different views on what Heraclitus might have meant in this article which is generally translated as the way up and the way down are one and the same are examined. On the other side, with a reading of Robert Frost’s famous poem of Road Not Taken, it has been tried whether a phenomenological interpretation of the way based on passenger is possible or not. It has been researched if there is a common ground or not where this fragment and poem -which exhibit two different views on the way- have met each other. This fragment and poem has been linked together on the context of essentiality of the passenger for the way.

In this article, some theories about evolutionary progress of human mind are examined and criticised. Through a comparative reading of these theories -which are sometimes contradictory to each other- it has been tried to present the common missing parts of these theories. The meaning of these theories for philosophy has been thought and the presupposition of linearity in these theories is criticised. The relation of the concept of emotion with the terms like cognition, apprehension, comprehension, intellect, self-awareness, consciousness -which stand forward within these theories- is emphasized. Through the visual cliff experiment, it has been attempted to clarify this relation.

In this article, it has been aimed to examine Nietzsche’s main critique towards different understandings of morals in his era. With this criticism, it is aimed to integrally understand the opinions -which are articulated directly or metaphorically- towards morals which have been encountered. In here, while keeping in mind the difference between the concepts of immoralism and amoralism, Nietzsche’s views are interpreted. Being parallel to that aim mentioned above, it has been investigated if there is a thinking in Nietzsche which can be seen as a kind of understanding of morals (maybe as the understanding of morals without morals) or not. And finally, it has been thought that if Nietzsche’s views on morals have any value for the 21st century and upcoming 22nd century human or not, whether there’s something left to learn for this human from his critiques or not.

In this article, it has been searched if the language and consciousness have a co-origin or not. This origin of language and consciousness problem which draws interest in areas especially like anthropology, biology and evolutionary linguistics and evolutionary psychology is tried to be handled from a philosophical point of view. By presenting the theories about the relation between language and consciousness, theories that are well-accepted but contradicted to another from certain aspects, a thinking -which tries to go beyond this contradiction- about the origin of language and consciousness has been attempted. With paying regard to different approaches represented by names like Piaget, Vygotsky, Chomsky, Whorf, an investigation has been made about what the meaning of language and consciousness having a not historical but elementarily philosophical co-origin can mean. It has been aimed to present a compiling point of view with this investigation.

In this article, the difference between human and animal in philosophy is mainly handled. This difference is thought over the concept of “the other” and Heidegger’s phenomenological distinction between human and animal. With respect to especially the views of Derrida and Levinas regarding to this matter, it has been attempted to exhibit this difference. Therefore, the two approaches -which were represented as the opposition of Derrida and Levinas- have been tried to clarify. After this, as a new approach to this opposition, the concept of “embrace” is philosophically problematized. This examination which also can be read under the main heading of philosophy of body makes especially the dorsal and more generally the whole back surface of human body subject matter of philosophical interpretation. The concepts of dorsal and embracing which can also be considered from the angle of phenomenology of the body- are approached from evolutionary and psychologically. With this, the concept of embracing deepens the thought of being-together-with-others in a specific context. A special relation is constructed between the meaning that is giving to embracing and rubbing of the back and existing.

This article mainly aims to make an examination over the holy. It has been inquired into how something being ascribed holy can have a meaning in philosophy. As the article's research area, the differences in both opinion and execution which have later divided Christianity into two as Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been selected. The separation of these two churches under the subject titles such as Filioque controversy, the idea of First Among Equals (primas inter pares), and ritual of Transubstantiation have also shaped how they perceived and thought the holy. With these divergences being investigated, it has been tried to present how much of a share these had in giving meaning for the holy. It has been labored to manifest the role of these two Churches' -which belong to and come from the same celestial tradition- divergences in the metamorphosis and paradigm shift that the holy underwent. For the last, through the Church Fathers' opinions and views which have been seen related to subject matter, with moving beyond the divergences, it has been searched whether there is a possibility of meeting on the common ground or not

When humanism is thought, especially within the borders of 20th century philosophy, one of the things that first comes to mind is the statements which have occurred in 1950s between Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, can be named as Heidegger-Sartre Controversy on Humanism and mainly based on two texts. Sartre, in one of his speeches, builds an essential connection between humanism and existentialism and in here he defines Heidegger as an existentialist like himself. In return, Heidegger, probably as a criticism to Sartre's attribution to him, told about his thoughts on humanism within the expanded version of one of his earlier letters. By this controversy the context and content humanism had been expanded, the understanding of humanism is deepened. The aim of this article is to manifest if there are some things that the controversy between Heidegger and Sartre could contribute to the terms -as a problematic humanism has nowadays- like post-humanism, trans-humanism, meta-humanism, super-humanism, alter-humanism whose terminological meanings aren't quite well-defined. It is to investigate if there are any solutions that humanism -which is being shaped again and obtaining new contexts through these terms- could gain by this controversy against this current terminology problem.

In this work, it has been mainly aimed to make a research on origin, meaning and context of two terms [Apophasis and Aphairesis]. These two terms which have an important place within the negative theology that has been thought explicitly appeared first with Pseudo-Dionysos Areopagita –but if required, it can be started in Plotinus, Aristotle, Plato or Parmenides– in history of philosophy [terms which also have been a subject to a misunderstanding, to a problem due to their being understood as synonymous with each other], are tried to be traced back within Greek thinking, culture and especially in Aristotle. With putting forth which sense and context these two terms were used and understood in Aristotle, the meaning and context changes these two terms had historically have been tried to be revealed.

In this text presented here, it has been tried to Show the difference between Heidegger’s first and second era understanding of language. In his first era, to manifest Heidegger’s understanding of language, outlines of Being and Time has been discussed and concerned chapter is read carefully. To manifest his understanding of language in second era, the work of On the Way to the Language has been taken as a base. With this comparative study, it has been tried to shown the change that “language” has undergone in Heidegger philosophy.

Avrupa felsefe tarihinin en ünlü mistik düşünürlerinden olan Meister Eckhart‘ın burada çevirisi sunulan vaaz Kitab-ı Mukaddes‘te İsa ile Mecdelli Meryem arasındaki bir anlatının Meister Eckhart tarafından yapılan yorumuna dayanır. Bu yorum, daha sonra 20. Yüzyıl felsefesi içinde özellikle Derrida, Heidegger, Jean-Luc Nancy gibi düşünürler arasında fenomenoloji açısından sorunsallaştırılan ten, beden, dokunma gibi öğeleri merkeze alan güncel felsefi tartışmalara yeni bir bakış açısı getirme olasılığı açısından önemlidir.

Bu makalede en temelde dil üzerine bir düşünme denenmiştir. Dilin evrimsel ve tarihsel gelişimine, oluşumuna dair farklı görüşler incelenmiştir. Bu görüşler üzerinden, konuşmanın ve bir söz söylemenin -herhangi bir şey söylemekten farklı olarak- felsefi anlamı düşünülmüştür. Dil ve düşünme arasındaki ilişkinin ne kadar derine gittiği ya da gitmediği araştırılmıştır. Heidegger‘in dile, konuşmaya ve söze ilişkin görüşleri sunularak günlük konuşmanın sıradanlığı ve dilin şiirselliğinin özsel önemi arasındaki karşıtlık bir nebze de olsa giderilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Mimarlık felsefesinde ―yer‖, ―mekan‖, ―uzam‖, ―boyut‖ gibi kavramlar sıklıklar tekrar tekrar ele alınıp tartışılır. Bu makalede en temelde aynı şeyin ―içerisi‖ ve ―dışarı‖ kavramları için yapılması denenmiştir. İç mekanlar genellikle binaların içi olarak düşünülür ve söz konusu bir dış mekan olduğunda, bu mekanın ―içerisi‖ olarak düşünülemeyeceği varsayılır. Dışarısı asla tam olarak bir iç mekan değildir. Bu makalede, bu görüş problematize edilmiş ve ―dışarının‖ da bir ―içerisi‖ olarak deneyimlenip deneyimlenemeyeceği araştırılmıştır. İlk olarak mekan sorununu ve bunun insan ile karşılıklı ilişkisini ele alındı. Mekanı deneyimleme şekillerimiz ve bunların insan bedeni ve duyularıyla özsel ilişkisi içerinin ve dışarının anlamını tanımlamada bir zemin oluşturdu. Maurice Merleau-Ponty ve Martin Heidegger üzerinden insan bedeni ve bedenin mekan ile ilişkisine dair fenomenolojik bir yaklaşım ile aynı zamanda Jean-Luc Nancy ve Derrida‘nın ―kutsal‖ üzerine görüşlerini ele alarak dışarıyı bir içerisi olarak deneyimleyebilmemizin nasıl olanaklı olduğu incelenmiştir.

Avrupa felsefe tarihinin en ünlü mistik düşünürlerinden olan Meister Eckhart‘ın burada çevirisi sunulan vaaz Kitab-ı Mukaddes‘te İsa ile Mecdelli Meryem arasındaki bir anlatının Meister Eckhart tarafından yapılan yorumuna dayanır. Bu yorum, daha sonra 20. Yüzyıl felsefesi içinde özellikle Derrida, Heidegger, Jean-Luc Nancy gibi düşünürler arasında fenomenoloji açısından sorunsallaştırılan ten, beden, dokunma gibi öğeleri merkeze alan güncel felsefi tartışmalara yeni bir bakış açısı getirme olasılığı açısından önemlidir.