Levinas’ın Heidegger Yorumundaki Temel Aporia’nın Açığa Çıkarılışı: Heidegger’in Erken Dönem Ontolojisinde “Dasein” ile “İnsan”ın Farkı

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 54, 209 - 224, 20.12.2025

Barışcan Demir

https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.1682235

Öz

Bu yazı, Heidegger’in erken dönem ontolojisinde “Dasein” ile “insan” arasındaki ayrımı ele almaktadır. Birbirine benzer olan kavramları “aynı”da eritmek, söz konusu kavramlara asıl gücünü veren “fark”ı, gözden kaçması doğal olan, ufacık bir unsura indirgemek anlamına gelmektedir. Öte yandan, ilkin önemsiz gibi görünen ufacık tuhaflıklar, aslında ortaya konan anlatının bütününde ters giden bir şeylerin olduğunun ilk işaretleri olarak belirmektedir. Bu bağlamda yazıda ilkin, Levinas’ın Heidegger yorumunda açığa çıkan ufak tuhaflıkların, bu yorumla oluşturulmuş olan anlatının kendisini nasıl kırılgan bir buzun üzerine ittiği belirgin kılınacaktır. Levinas’ın Heidegger yorumunda ilk bakışta küçük ve önemsiz gibi görünen, fakat sonrasında büyük bir yorum problemine yol açtığını iddia edeceğim temel tuhaflık, Levinas’ın Heidegger’in “Dasein” kavramını “insan” olarak ele almış olmasıdır. Bu problemi belirgin kıldıktan sonra, söz konusu yorumdaki hatanın, aslında farklı stratejik amaçlar doğrultusunda geliştiği ve bu amaçlarla şekillenen bir yorumun da, anlatının bütününde nasıl aporia’lar doğurduğu ortaya koyulacaktır. Son olarak da, Heidegger’in ortaya koyduğu önontolojik dizgede belirdiği haliyle “Dasein”ı “insan”dan ayıran asli “fark”ın ne olduğunu açığa çıkaracak yeni bir anlatı gerçekleştirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Heidegger , Levinas , Dasein , gerçeklik , olanak

Revealing The Fundamental Aporia In Levinas’s Interpretation Of Heidegger: The Difference Between “Dasein” And “Human” In Heidegger’s Early Ontology

Öz

This article treats of the distinction between “Dasein” and “human” in early Heidegger’s ontology. To reduce similar concepts to the “same” means relegating the “difference”, which lends actual power to these concepts, to a minute element that is naturally overlooked. Meanwhile, small oddities which at first sight appear to be insignificant appear as the initial signals of something going wrong with the whole of the narrative produced. In this article, first the small oddities found in Levinas’s interpretation of Heidegger are revealed to place the whole narrative on thin ice. The fundamental oddity in Levinas’s interpretation of Heidegger, which may initially appear minor and insignificant but, as I will later argue, culminates in a significant interpretative problem, is Levinas’s evaluation of Heidegger’s concept of “Dasein” as equivalent to “human”. After elucidating this problem, it is demonstrated that the error in the interpretation develops around strategic aims and how an interpretation shaped around such aims creates aporias in the whole of Levinas’s narrative. Finally, a new narrative, which shows the main difference between “Dasein” and “human” in early Heidegger’s ontology, is developed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Heidegger , Levinas , Dasein , reality , potentiality

Kaynakça

• Adorno, T. (1973). The jargon of authenticity (K. Tarnowski & F. Will, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Aktok, Ö. (2017). Platon’un mağarasına dönüş yolunda: Heidegger, Platon ve aletheia. Felsefi Düşün, 8, 47-79.
• Aristotle. (1966). Metaphysica (W. D. Ross, Trans.). W. D. Ross (Ed.), in The works of Aristotle, volume VIII. London: Oxford University Press.
• Augustine. (2019). Confessions (T. Williams, Trans.). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
• Bloch, E. (2006). Traces (A. A. Nassar, Trans.). California: Standford University Press.
• Critchley, S. (2004). Emmanuel Levinas: a disparate inventory. S. Critchley & R. Bernasconi (Ed.), in The Cambridge companion to Levinas (pp. XV-XXX). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dastur, F. (2008). The reception and nonreception of Heidegger in France. D. Pettigrew & F. Raffoul (Ed.), in French interpretations of Heidegger: An exceptional reception (pp. 265-289). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Gözkan, H. B. (2010). Kant’tan Heidegger’e varlığın anlamı meselesi. Cogito, 64, 113-152.
• Heidegger, M. (1977). Gesamtausgabe, I. Abteilung; veröffentlichte schriften 1914-1970, Band 2, Sein und zeit. Franfurt & Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Heidegger, M. (1988). The basic problems of phenomenology (A. Hofstadter, Trans). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1992). History of the concept of time prolegomena (T. Kisiel, Trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1995). Aristotle’s metaphysics Θ 1-3 on the essence and actuality of force (W. Brogdan & P. Warnek, Trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time (J. Strambaugh, Trans.). New York: State University of New York Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1998). Letter on humanism (F. A. Capuzzi, Trans.). W. McNail (Ed.), in Pathmarks (pp. 239-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (2000). Introduction to metaphysics (G. Fried & R. Polt, Trans.). London: Yale University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (2001). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Heidegger, M. (2003). What is philosophy? (J. T. Wilde & W. Klubak, Trans.). New York: Rowman & Liddlefield Publishing.
• Heidegger, M. (2008). Basic concepts of ancient philosophy (R. Rojcewicz, Trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (2009). Basic concepts of Aristotelian philosophy (R. D. Metcalf & M. B. Tanzer, Trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Heidegger, M. (2012). Bremen and Freiburg lectures: Insight into that which is and basic principles of thinking (A. J. Mitchell, Trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Inwood, M. (1999). A Heidegger dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Keyes, C. D. (1972). An evaluation of Levinas’ critique of Heidegger. Research in Phenomenology, 2, 121-142. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24654228.
• King, M. (1964). Heidegger’s philosophy: A guide to his basic thought. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Lescourret, M. (2010). Bir yirminci yüzyıl filozofu: Emanuel Levinas, 1906-1995. Monokl, 8-9, 26-33.
• Levinas, E. (1989). As if conserting to horror. Critical Inquiry,15, 485-488.
• Levinas, E. (1994). Nine Talmudic readings (A. Aranowicz, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Levinas, E. (1995). The theory of intuition in Husserl’s phenomenology (A. Orianne, Trans.). Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
• Levinas, E. (1996). Martin Heidegger and ontology. Diacritics, 26, 11-31. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1566250.
• Levinas, E. (1998). Is ontology fundamental? (M. B. Smith & B. Harshav, Trans.), in On thinking of the other etre nous (pp. 1-12). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Levinas, E. (2007). Totality and infinity (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press.
• Lichtenberg, G. C. (2012). Philosophical writings (S. Tester, Trans.). New York: State University of New York Press.
• Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. London: Oxford University Press.
• Lilly, R. (2008). Levinas’s Heideggerian fantasm. D. Pettigrew & F. Raffoul (Ed.), in French interpretations of Heidegger: An exceptional reception (pp. 35-58). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Ott, H. (1993). Martin Heidegger: A political life (A. Blunden, Trans.). London: Harper Collins Publishers.
• Peperzak, A. (1998). Levinas’ method. Research in Phenomenology, 28, 110-125. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24659052.
• Poleshchuk, I. (2010). Heidegger and Levinas: Metaphysics, ontology and the horizon of the other. The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 10(2), 1-10. doi: 10.2989/IPJP.2010.10.2.4.1085.
• Sartre, J. (1978). Being and nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). New York: Pocket Book Publisher.
• Sartre, J. (2007). Existentialism is a humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). London: Yale University Press.
• Ünlü, H. (2022). Dynamis and energeia in Aristotle’s metaphysics. European Journal of Philosophy, 30(1), 17-31. doi: 10.1111/EJOP.12635.
• Ünlü, H. (2023). A transcategorial conception of dynamis and energeia. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 97(1), 49-68. doi: 10.5840/ACPQ2023328263.