:(

I learned a lot from listening to his lectures on Heidegger. At first I was dismayed by his bumbling style--"has this guy even read the book?"--but came to appreciate the way he was always exploring the text along with the students. He was the teacher of a canonical work, but he didn't stop thinking about it or reversing his earlier interpretations.

If representation, or symbolism, isn't the case, then how is it that I have different ways of experiencing the same thing. For instance, I can see that the cookies in the oven are done. I can also smell that they are done and even taste that they are done. Which impression is the right one? They are distinctly different impressions and if they all mean the same thing - that the cookies are done - then how is representation, or symbolism, not taking place?

How about our own language? How is it that we use symbols to represent other things and there are some that even say we think in our language? If language uses symbols and we think in our language, then we think in symbols.

His book Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I was my introduction to Heidegger. His podcasted lectures from Berkeley, as Jamalrob noted, were very interesting, too. I used to listen to them while maintaining gardens. (L)

Dreyfus also played an important role in making Heidegger (at least somewhat) accessible to analytically-inclined American philosophers, thus beginning a sort of fruitful engagement between previously antagonistic camps. That was a significant achievement in my admittedly biased opinion, and there are now quite a few of his former students spread throughout the US who are continuing what he started, appropriating important insights drawn from Heidegger--for example those which are relevant to debates surrounding artificial intelligence--while leaving out what many (not me) would consider inessential aspects of his thought, specifically those which betray his undeniable anti-modern and anti-democratic perspective.

Nice obituary in First Things with some insightful commentary on Dreyfus' particular philosophical concerns.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that Dreyfus had co-authored a book with Charles Taylor. Looks like an interesting read:
https://www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Realism-Hubert-Dreyfus/dp/0674967518?tag=firstthings20-20

Noticed that a couple of years ago, put it on the list of things I ought to read but probably never will. (I have Taylor's 'Secular Age' and it's mostly gathering dust.)

That's funny: I also have Secular Age performing the same function. I read Sources of the Self years ago and found it quite interesting (although dense).

I also have Ethics of Authenticity, and his Hegel, both of which I am yet to read, and another little book about modern forms of religion, including "new agism" which I have read, and whose title escapes me. I don't understand how someone of his intellectual stature can be a practicing Catholic, though. Does he really believe the Catholic dogma, or does he just lend support to it because he believes it benefits society more than not?

The 'realism' book is apparently a call for a return to metaphysical realism, which is not usually thought to be a standpoint held by the religious; although I have long thought that metaphysical realism is actually quite consonant with Christianity, at least.

I don't understand how someone of his intellectual stature can be a practicing Catholic, though. Does he really believe the Catholic dogma, or does he just lend support to it because he believes it benefits society more than not? — John

I think because he believes it. Ever read Stephen M Barr - physicist and Jesuit? There are many Catholic teachers and intellectuals for whom I have a profound respect - Gilson, Maritain, Richard Rohr, Bernard Lonergan, Thomas Merton to name a few. I feel much more affinity with Catholic intellectuals than most secular philosophers.

So, you think he believes the Catholic orthodoxy that those who don't believe in Christ are destined for eternal punishment, or at least Purgatory?

I really have to stop now!

So, later....
:)

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about God 'sending people to hell'. I really don't believe in such a God. I interpret it more broadly, but then, I'm not a Catholic. ;-)

I certainly don't, and I think never could, believe in any such God, either. But I believe the Catholics do, and that was what I was saying I find incomprehensible about anyone even moderately intellectually sophisticated being a Catholic. I can only imagine that they pay lip-service only; and profess such beliefs for social or psychological reasons. No doubt Catholicism has done unspeakable harm to humanity, but it has also done a great deal of good; and I don't have any idea how one could weigh the beneficent against the maleficent.

Ironically, there's arguably more Catholic Christians who have contributed to philosophy than most other forms of Christianity (Tieilard de Chardin, Maritain, MacIntyre)...

I would say there have been far greater Lutheran philosophers, at least in the modern era: Leibniz, Kant, Hegel for example.

Anyway, the mere existence of great philosophers who were professed Christians doesn't really answer the question as to what they really believed. When it comes to the three philosophers I mentioned; it is arguable that they were not genuine believers; but it was much harder to admit skepticism of the Church in their times than it is in ours.

My mistake; I made my comment without much forethought. If only there were a delete button here...

But, I did make the comment with a general feeling for philosophical thought being more acceptable within contemporary Catholicism, vs. contemporary Protestantism. My bias, of course, but take it or leave it.

I think that it is true that there has been a more vigorous earlier intellectual tradition within Catholicism than within other traditions (although I don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox, which would have been the main early rival I guess) so your comment was certainly not vacuous.

His book Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I was my introduction to Heidegger. — John

Me too! I read it as preparation for an undergraduate course on Being and Time. I would have been lost without it.