Book Description:
'There are few philosophers with as lively a sense of humor as Paul Edwards, and few philosophers for whom one needs it as much as Heidegger. Professor Edwards's essays on one of the twentieth century's most studied thinkers are not only wry but acute, stimulating, and important.' ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, THE ECONOMIST 'Here is Paul Edwards at his brilliant, caustic best, lancing the bombast filled boils of Heideggerian Being. More power to his lance. If all philosophers had their very own miniature Paul Edwards sitting on their shoulder as they wrote, we would be spared a great deal of pretentious nonsense.' PETER SINGER, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University 'Paul Edwards writes with wit and verve. He explains clearly why those of us who are repelled by Heidegger's style of philosophizing are right not to read him. The book should do much good.' J.J.C. Smart, Emeritus Professor, Australian National University In this thorough critique of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, philosopher Paul Edwards continues a project that he began several years ago. Edward's goal has been 'to rescue Heidegger's valuable ideas from the logical confusions in which they are embedded and from the willfully obscure and perverse language in which they are frequently expressed' (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, June 11, 1981). In this penetrating and witty book, Edwards insightfully analyzes Heidegger's quest for being; his treatment of death, anxiety, and nothingness; and his double talk about life after death. In a brief preface Edwards aptly sums up the thrust of his criticism: 'Bertrand Russell once referred to Kant as the greatest catastrophe in the history of philosophy, C.D. Broad commented that this position surely belonged to Hegel. Russell and Broad were wrong, because this title undoubtedly belongs to Martin Heidegger. Some years ago, Anthony Quinton spoke of Heidegger's 'pondrous and rubbishy woolgathering.' Until fairly recently, Heidegger was not taken seriously by philosophers in Great Britain and the United States. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. One goal if the present study is to stem this ride of unreason.'
|
