ISBN 22508740

Studia Heideggeriana

Phenomenological Interpretations of Not-Being-At-Home

Vol. 11

In the circumstances that the world population has been living through in recent months it is possible to highlight some characteristic phenomena of what Heidegger described as not-being-at-home [Un-zuhause-sein], the loss of everyday familiarity with our world. These phenomena are worth examining from a phenomenological and hermeneutical perspective since - as with anxiety - they arise in situations that disconnect Dasein from its world and from the public interpretation from which it usually understands itself (BT, p. 187). Illness has affectedmillions of people who have experienced firsthand the limits of their physical body (breathing, smell, taste, limited motor skills, pain in general) and the incidence of unwanted emotional disturbances (depression, anxiety, PTSD, fear, nervousness, etc.). To what experience of the world, of the body, of oneself, of others, etc. does illness give access? What types of "not feeling at home in the world" does the sick person experience? Illness, when it afflicts a body weakened by old age, makes the anticipation of death more likely, and it is the elderly in particular on whom the infections of recent months have fallen hardest. How do we interpret our old age or that of others (that of you and/or that of the other) in these circumstances? We have been forcibly isolated in our homes, alone or with our nuclear family. What does it mean to inhabit a space, our home, during lockdown? The closest and most intimate space has become inhospitable, showing not only how physical illness transforms the space of the world (climbing the stairs or opening a door can become almost impossible tasks), but also our affective dispositions. What is the space of not-being-at-home? Time has stood out for its absence (a lack of time because we are busy) or for its overabundance (boredom, apathy, dullness, etc.). What is the time of illness and isolation like? What does the weight or lightness of inhospitable time reveal for an existential analytic and/or a fundamental ontology? Sick and isolated, we have experienced the deep need to be cared for. The pain of our flesh or the anxiety of being confined appealed, explicitly or implicitly, to the Other, someone we could trust and who would alleviate our sorrows. What kind of relationship with the other occurs when-we-are-not-at-home? What does it factually mean, in illness, «to leap ahead of the Other [...] to give his care back to him»? Lockdown has also revealed another face of the relationship with the other: its being inhospitable in a radical way. We shun him, we turn away from him on the street and see him as a potentially harmful being. How do we reconcile need and rejection of the other? What kind of public life takes shape when the other as a whole is a threat? What modalities of the One are manifested during lockdown? The use of medications as a cure for illness, if on the one hand it represents a desired relief, on the other it has implications that go beyond simple cure. At least in the West the phenomenon of medicalization and the strict correlation between medication and health is worthy of analysis. What links are being drawn between health and medicine in societies permeated by technology? What does it mean to be in “good health” when care and health are increasingly focused in merely technical-instrumental terms? Communication is increasingly being supported by new technologies (video calls, virtual seminars and conferences, online classes, etc.). Education itself - which has communication as a fundamental ingredient - has had to leave the "real" classrooms for the "digital" platforms. How do we interpret these "new" dialogues? What experience of communication do they introduce? For years we have fantasized about the potential of online communication, which in an extremely short time has collapsed all spatial distance, putting us into relationship with the whole world. However, being "confined" to this single type of communication has become unbearable for many, and they have begun to feel that communication "in the flesh" is necessary. Can one speak, with phenomenological rigor, of various types of communication (real/natural and virtual)? What phenomenological differences (limits and potentialities) are there between these communicative modalities? In recent years, a specific form of not-being-at-home has been growing by leaps and bounds: today almost 80 million people in the world are displaced and refugees. This number is likely to increase in the coming decades. According to Heidegger, the basic character of dwelling - and therefore of building and ultimately of human space as a whole - is sparing and preserving [Schonen]. What then does it mean to dwell or to build, and what is the meaning of house, people, and nation, when one of the main characters of the life of refugees seems to be the absence of sparing and preserving? How can this forced migration be interpreted phenomenologically? Studia Heideggeriana cordially invites all interested authors to submit papers in Spanish, Portuguese and English on these subjects. Studia Heideggeriana also accepts free submissions, not related to the topic of the issue, for its Varia section. Deadline: December 15, 2021 Submissions: http://studiaheideggeriana.org/index.php/sth/about/submissions Guidelines: https://studiaheideggeriana.org/index.php/sth/guidelines

Publication details

Full citation:

(2022). Phenomenological Interpretations of Not-Being-At-Home. Studia Heideggeriana 11.

Table of Contents

This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.