Rong Jian: Whose Heidegger —— Taking a philosophical paper by Professor Zhang Yibing as an analysis case.

German classical philosophy since Kant has been repeatedly read by China scholars for a long time, so that German philosophical discourse has become a popular academic discourse in China. The appearance of Heidegger has been interpreted by many famous scholars in China, further creating a profound and even "mysterious" realm of German philosophy. On the premise that readers don't know the "text", how to read and understand the thoughts of these great philosophers, the reader really has the responsibility to tell the readers the "truth" of their thoughts. However, some German philosophical interpreters in China seem to be more willing to play a more profound role in the relevant explanatory texts they provide than their German teachers. Not only can they not be expected to guide readers in an easy-to-understand way, but they will lead readers into a maze of words constructed by fictional concepts and vocabulary under their interpretation. Recently, I read Professor Zhang Yibing's Life Experience as Ereignis-Context Interpretation of Young Heidegger's Early Lectures in Frejborg (Modern Philosophy, No.5, 20 1 1), which is a ready-made case in this respect and worth analyzing. Where are the obstacles to the explanation of constructivism? The profundity of German philosophy is made up of a series of obscure and abstract concepts to some extent. Whether Kant, Hegel or Marx, some basic concepts in their works, such as rationality, concept and society, have clear reference objects, which can be compared with the experience and knowledge formed by people in their daily lives. By Heidegger's time, some simple daily life words were endowed with metaphysical meanings, such as "being" and "being here". These words, which people are no longer familiar with, have become the cornerstone of existential philosophy after Heidegger's deduction. Heidegger's seemingly incomprehensible readers are actually based on people's most direct life experiences. But in my opinion, Zhang Yibing's interpretation of Heidegger's Contextualism not only failed to eliminate the obstacles brought by language differences to reading Heidegger's thoughts, but further aggravated Heidegger's reading difficulties with a series of concepts and vocabulary created by himself. Zhang Yibing's theory of "architectural environment" should be his original creation. He systematically expounded the "Constructivism" and various explanations in his articles in response to skeptics, but he still gave the impression of being vague and ambiguous. Obviously, he thinks that it is too underestimating to attribute his theory to idealism, because he put forward a new theoretical construction on the shoulders of a master like Heidegger, or he found his own "constructive theory" in Heidegger's works. In Zhang Yibing's view, Heidegger's "experience of the surrounding world" constitutes a very profound "ideological context layer", which is the most wonderful phenomenological analysis of young Heidegger. Why do you say that? Because Heidegger believes that the same table can be recognized as a platform "at once" under the "intuition" of him and his students, but for a farmer from the black forest or a black man in Senegal, it is just a wooden box or something that can resist flying arrows and stones. What does the "intuitive" difference in this table mean? Zhang Yibing's explanation is that young Heidegger is ready to surpass Husserl and "suddenly turn to the idea of building the environment he intends to deepen". He also linked this explanation with Marx's speech in "Wage Labor and Capital" and Wittgenstein's statement, in order to prove that great thinkers who grew up in different knowledge backgrounds all had * * * knowledge of "Constructivism". The reason why people have different understandings and judgments about the same thing really needs to be explained. Whether to use a desk as a platform, a box or something else should be related to the needs, experiences and realistic feelings of different cognitive subjects. Zhang Yibing believes that this connection "is not the encounter of external relations among three physical things (subject self, things and environment), but a" * * * background "constructed at present. In order to explain that this "* * * scene" is another expression of constructivism, he used a series of self-created concepts, such as "constructive echo", "complex scene", "power tension wave", "construction space" and "boundless", some of which were dragged into a German vocabulary to show the legitimacy and authority of their birth. In order to understand these words, Professor Zhang should compile a dictionary specially. Zhang Yibing's Constructivism tries to explain Heidegger's thought, that is, "something" itself does not have objectivity and specific meaning, nor is it "general" about things in the sense of Kant and Husserl, but only "the scene implication of some connection this thing has obtained in the world around us". In Zhang Yibing's view, this is the essence of "construction", which does not express the physical relationship between things, or even their concepts intuitively, but expresses a kind of "emergent scene occurrence event". He believes that it is precisely because of these wonderful ideas of constructing environment that Heidegger has surpassed the "objective relationship ontology" and entered the "scene relevance theory". To illustrate this point, he seldom cited the example that China nouveau riche didn't understand music. In his view, this poor man with countless money but no soul has nothing to do with the real music environment because he can't enter the world music environment space. I must admit that I am under great pressure in Professor Zhang Yibing's environmental theory. If I can't read him in Heidegger's way, I will become his "boundless" person, that is, a farmer in the black forest or a black Senegalese, and what's worse, an upstart in China. Professor Zhang said it was fair. What is the purpose of text analysis? Professor Zhang Yibing not only created and applied his "context theory" uniquely, but also actively promoted discourse analysis. Many of his works are written under text analysis, and this philosophical paper is no exception. At the beginning of the article, he claimed that his "latest research experience" was that Heidegger faced three kinds of "others": theology, scholarship and politics. In his works, according to his own thought of "authenticity", different texts are set for different levels of "watching others", that is, "forced-to-yield performance text", "controversial performance text" and "appearance of vertical presence" as understood by Zhang Yibing. In order to increase the credibility of these statements, he also marked these words in German to show that this is by no means groundless; And remind readers to refer to another article published by him, entitled "Young Heidegger: The Secret Text of Deviation from Others" (Academic Monthly,No. 1 1, 2065438). After reading this article, do we admire Heidegger or Professor Zhang Yibing? Text analysis has almost evolved into a search for secrets and treasures, which is an unprecedented academic spectacle. Zhang Yibing thinks that Heidegger wants to set different texts in his works because he can't express his "real thoughts" in class. He can neither directly call the religious world a sinking world, nor dare to scold the public academic field, so he has to dormant his thoughts and perform dance in the traditional framework. At the same time, actively carry out their own "true" thinking in traditional academic discourse. This is equivalent to saying that Heidegger is a strategy master who cares about survival. He knew exactly what kind of words to use to fool the traditional academic circles, and what kind of thoughts were hidden in every corner of his works, which constituted the secret text discovered by Zhang Yibing later. In Heidegger's era, how much political, religious and academic pressure forced him to hide his "authenticity" thought? Or, is it necessary to use different writing methods in the same book in order to dismember your thoughts into pieces? These are the questions that readers will inevitably ask after seeing Zhang Yibing's text analysis. Zhang Yibing told Dr. Sun Zhouxing that those texts were not "possibly lost", but were "deliberately obscured" by Heidegger when he analyzed why the complete works of Heidegger did not include his speeches on Nietzsche in 19 13 and socialism in 19 13, on the grounds that these speeches were "too caught up with him". Without questioning what is the "mirror tradition of the other", I am interested in how many secret texts have been actively concealed or hidden by Heidegger for various reasons. In order to fully demonstrate the rigor and credibility of text analysis, Zhang Yibing chose an "interesting text event" in the Complete Works of Heidegger, that is, the comparison between Heidegger's lecture notes and his student Brecht's notes. He found that "the original speech is obviously more profound and thorough than the ideological structure reflected in the notes"; He later discovered that from 65438 to 0962, there was a "subtle difference" between the original lecture and the recorded manuscript of the seminar "Time and Existence". Zhang Yibing did not answer where these differences are and what different thinking directions they represent. In his view, these differences are obviously enough to prove that Heidegger had formed two different ways of discourse at that time, one was to face the familiar "academic construction field", and the other was to lurk in the depths of the text and occasionally reveal unusual "authenticity" thoughts. From the postmodern perspective, the text has independent value independent of society, ideology and even the author. This basic ideological tendency is indeed of great significance for excluding many factors that interfere with the interpretation of the text. However, Zhang Yibing's text analysis presents us with an isolated "text event" in a historical vacuum. The relationship between text and society, the relationship between text and ideological history, and the contextual relationship of text itself are all solved through an analysis similar to deciphering passwords. Can the analytical methods used by Professor Zhang Yibing to discover Heidegger's different texts also be used to analyze himself? Will the difference between his students' lecture notes and his lecture notes also constitute a kind of personality split? How is "Ereignis" experienced by life? There are many faces in Heidegger's ideological image presented in Professor Zhang Yibing's Theory of Building Environment. Which Zhang Cai is the most authentic is not what Heidegger can say, but whether readers can "echo" Heidegger's thoughts and "suddenly" enter the "echoing construction environment" jointly constructed with Heidegger as Zhang Yibing said. Otherwise, the construction of the scene is a kind of "boundless", just like the author's query and criticism of Zhang Yibing, it is impossible to construct a scene with him. Does this mean that readers can only become people in Heidegger's realm through sympathetic understanding, appreciation or Zhang Yibing-style discovery? If so, isn't this kind of environmental relationship a kind of "conspiracy" relationship? Where is the critical perspective? What can you say except "follow the instructions"? It was after reading this philosophical paper by Zhang Yibing that I realized the significance of "alienation" in Heidegger's whole ideological construction. According to him, the appearance of this daily expression shows "the original charm of academic environment in Heidegger's texts", which is the predecessor of speech existence (Sein). Zhang Yibing understood the concept of "Ereignis" as the result of Heidegger's "carefully crafted ideological context", indicating that Heidegger tried to transcend Husserl's phenomenological tradition, from the problem experience of general things (transcendental comprehensive judgment or intuitive conceptual essence) to the experience of life, thus setting the goal of phenomenology as "the study of free life". I don't know if my generalization conforms to the original meaning of contextual interpretation. Perhaps Heidegger, as Zhang Yibing understood, opposed all essential provisions, objectified or conceptualized "abandoning life" and only paid attention to the real experience of life. This experience is not a process, an object or an object, but is understood as "a completely novel thing and an event". Essentially, this event is only "owned" by those who have experienced it. From this, I understand that "alienation" itself is an experience, and the experience of it becomes the "empirical experience" summarized by Zhang Yibing. I don't care whether Zhang Yibing's interpretation of "Ereignis" conforms to Heidegger's original meaning, and whose Heidegger is responsible. What I care about is whether he is as crazy as Arendt because he wants to participate in Heidegger's construction field. He fully realized that the academic outlook of Heidegger's "Ereignis" not only intuitively surpassed Husserl's phenomenology, but also contained a kind of "insightful insight", that is, "a critical view of scientific knowledge". Zhang Yibing is obviously happy to see the scientific joke in Heidegger's context: "Being a negative teacher". As a Marxist scholar, Zhang Yibing seems willing to establish a contextual relationship between Marx and Heidegger. When he saw Heidegger's life experience about "Ereignis", he immediately thought of Marx's criticism of Feuerbach in The Outline of Feuerbach, which only focused on understanding the external world from an objective or intuitive form, which was tantamount to falling into Heidegger's "infinity" summarized by Zhang Yibing. When the two so-called cornerstones of materialism and idealism, the objectivity of matter and the essentiality of ideas, were deconstructed by Heidegger in Zhang Yibing's Constructivism, the only thing left was this nihilistic experience, which was actually a German word-Ereignis. Whose Heidegger? Is it Heidegger's Heidegger or Zhang Yibing's Heidegger? (The writer is a researcher at the Institute of Marxist Philosophy and China Modernization of Sun Yat-sen University. )