How do you not mention the referential unity of significance that Heidegger brings up in his tool analysis? The object is not a unity, rather it exists within an already given unity or totality of meaning. The tool can only be understood in terms of a 'for-the-sake-of-which' that defines our 'invisible' engagement with it. Dasein, or the human being, is also caught up in this referential totality and therefore correlated with the tool as an object. Heidegger does not speak of an object or a subject prior to relations, even the term relation is improper here, the 'object' for Heidegger is always bound up in referential use that takes place within a horizon of sense opened up the projective structure of Dasein. I feel like Graham here is being very selective with his reading of Heidegger.
Harman sometimes reminds me of Kramer from Seinfeld.
I don't necessarily disagree, but can you describe how?
@@AbCDef-zs6uj The stature, the fuzzy hair, and the voice tone.
Young Graham Harman - Was a pretty guy in his late 30s
Haha, all the posh white bro voices in the Q&A sound the same. hahaha
How do you not mention the referential unity of significance that Heidegger brings up in his tool analysis? The object is not a unity, rather it exists within an already given unity or totality of meaning. The tool can only be understood in terms of a 'for-the-sake-of-which' that defines our 'invisible' engagement with it. Dasein, or the human being, is also caught up in this referential totality and therefore correlated with the tool as an object. Heidegger does not speak of an object or a subject prior to relations, even the term relation is improper here, the 'object' for Heidegger is always bound up in referential use that takes place within a horizon of sense opened up the projective structure of Dasein.
I feel like Graham here is being very selective with his reading of Heidegger.
islamic philosophy is not a branch of western philosophy lmaooo