Affiliation:
1. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi
2. İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GELİŞİM MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU
Abstract
Heidegger's philosophical project is generally seen as atheoretical and anti-logical because he remarked on the subjective conditions of knowledge and the everydayness of human behaviors. To him, Dasein's everyday reasoning is coercively and inevitably framed by the present-at-hand modes of understanding. Heidegger alerts us about the possible origins of present-at-hand modes of everyday experience. One of them is Das Man that, is associated with a categorical otherness for Heidegger. It can be regarded as an origin of the primordial scheme of experiences for Dasein that takes those experiences for granted as an axiological ground for their lives in the World. Heidegger sees that process as an inauthentic condition for Dasein's fundamental character. Everyday reasoning generates a variety of present-at-hand instruments to understand and interpret the World and Dasein itself; thus, Dasein moves between Das Man and authentic modes. With a Heideggerian approach, this article observes how the characters in the film Druk take themselves out of Das Man and go into the authentic mode and how they do this through alcohol. The primary data source is Druk and the four teacher characters in the film. In the movie, alcohol is not a ready-to-hand object but a tool motivating its users and pushing them to perform. It is an example equivalent to the Heideggerian analogy of the hammer. The movie is a well-fitting example of the Heideggerian position with the story of four teachers who experiment with having a certain amount of alcohol in their blood to achieve a better version of themselves.
Publisher
Journal of Academic Inquiries
Reference14 articles.
1. Audi, Robert (ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed., 2015.
2. Dahlstrom, Daniel O. “Heidegger's Method: Philosophical Concepts as Formal Indications”. The Review of Metaphysics 47/4 (1994, June), 775-795.
3. Dastur, Françoise. “Logic and Ontology: Heidegger's ‘Destruction’ of Logic”. Research in Phenomenology 17 (1987), 55-74.
4. Dreyfus, Hubert L. “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing It Would Require Making It More Heideggerian”. Philosophical Psychology 20/2 (2007), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080701239510
5. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. çev. John Macquarrie - Edward Robinson. Cornwall: Blackwell, 2001.