“In Aomori my interest was drawn, with an almost overpowering urge, towards the colour blue,” he explains.
Prior to his trip, Mourant immersed himself in the writings of Gaston Bachelard, Rebecca Solnit and philosopher Martin Heidegger, as well as the prolific Japanese author Haruki Murakami, “whose storylines fed perfectly into my own work.” He mentions John Gossage, Hokusai and Lothar Baumgarten as artistic influences, but says that his major inspiration was “the great Yves Klein”, and in particular his studies in blue.
Braig's Vom Sein treatise contributed above all, from a general point of view, to focus Heidegger's interests toward the ontological problem and, secondly, more specifically, to converge in a certain direction the burgeoning issue of being or, if you will, to confirm the direction he had taken after reading Brentano's dissertation: that is the tendency to focus his research mainly on the guiding meaning of being rather than on its many meanings,
Camus was most comfortable leading us into philosophy through literature. His novel L’étranger raises one of the most important topics of our times: the concept of the stranger. The stranger is the one who is puzzled by existence, cannot or can no longer take it for granted, and therefore opens the door for philosophy as born from reflection. Philosophy is born from wonder, which can be wonder inspired by an encounter with strangeness.
Literature is particularly suitable for an encounter with strangeness because it allows us to take the kind of distance from the everyday that is normally missing. In the midst of everyday existence, we are so closely embedded in the world that we cannot reflect on it. In the everyday mode, we do not realise that existence means being-in-the-world (as the philosophers Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty put it). The world is so closely pressed on us, so immediately around us and even within us, that we cannot describe it; cannot even get a sense of it.
Only gradually do patterns emerge. About halfway through, she cites Heidegger’s idea of “a hammer seizing its actuality, revealing its form, only when broken”, and wonders: what if the same applies to human subjectivity? Can we, too, only seize our actuality when broken? If so, Alsadir is caught in a paradox, since she is a mother and a psychoanalyst with an interest in Lacan.
Heidegger's main objection to Aristotle is to his theory of time in the Physics. Heidegger believes that Aristotle understands Being with regard to present-moment presence, and understands time through this interpretation of Being as presence. He thinks that all theories of time since Aristotle (including Augustinian time) have basically followed Aristotle's lead of explaining time on the basis of Being, rather than Being on the basis of time.
However, Heidegger does think that two figures, Aristotle and Kant, do see that time has a deeper, more fundamental meaning than the "leveled" sense of presence, but only drop hints about this.
Levinas is adamant that infinite responsibility and substitution comes from an obsession in psychism that is disordered and that cannot be placed in an order unless it is betrayed (by becoming a theme). Proximity (like contact, contagion) introduces an element of disorder in any theme - in any organization. To be driven by proximity is to be driven in a manner that is alien to order and system. The contrast is strangely close to the one Heidegger draws in the Einblick: Nähe versus Ge-Stell. Nähe, for him, introduces an opening of things on their own pace and the Kehre that intends to reject Ge-Stell would reject thematization along with totality. Levinas' path is very different, but even in Heidegger we can see the Kehre as against an order of things (that make them available).