Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences
Rajesh Sampath
ABSTRACT: This is the second article of a two-article series and is labeled Part II. In this article, we pick up where we left off on a close reading of Division Two of Heidegger’s greatest work, Being and Time (1927). In the first article labeled Part I, we executed a granular analysis of a few lines and phrases in section 65 in Chapter III, section 69 in Chapter IV, and sections 72 and 74 in Chapter V on ‘primordial ecstatic, finite, unified, authentic temporality’ (Heidegger 1962, 380) and ‘equiprimordiality of the unity of the ecstases’ (Heidegger 1962, 378), ‘the whitherings and horizontal schemas’ (Heidegger 1962, 416), and the ontological distinction of movement/Bewegtheit and the Western metaphysical tradition on spatialized motion/Bewegung (Heidegger 1962, 427) respectively. Attempting to show the connectedness of these problems in a manner different from Being and Time itself required a bracketing of how we renew our engagement with Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel even after Heidegger’s attempted ‘destruction’ (Heidegger 1962, 41) of the ontological and metaphysical traditions of the West. In Part I, we attempted to resume the possibility of an abstract metaphysical undertaking about a four-dimensional temporality that Heidegger could not and did not articulate in Being and Time. In this follow-up article labeled Part II, we will attempt a direct appropriation of Hegel’s The Science of Logic (1813-1816), particularly on his enigmatic introduction to the term ‘quadruplicity’ (Hegel 2010, 746) that comes at the very end of his greatest and most complex work. We will try to outline the possibility of articulating the very being of time as an interrelations-movement-event beyond the succession and simultaneity of two things. This conceptualization is non-spatial, never an object of representation, intuition, or the imagination, and not reducible to the predominance of the present as the ‘now’ point. We see this work as one long preface to our own independent possibility, apart from Heidegger and Hegel, to articulate a heretofore unknown speculative phenomenological theory of four-dimensional time.
