Saving Heidegger from Benner and Wrubel

Horrocks, S

Abstract

In their criticism of my paper (Horrocks, 2002) Benner and Wrubel (hereafter B&W) argue that I add 'new misinterpretations of Heidegger that render his paper incoherent' (Benner & Wrubel, 2002, p. 45). I am going to argue that their interpretation does not follow what Heidegger himself says, and also it does not follow the interpretation of several highly regarded Heideggerian scholars. The only interpretation it does match is that of Dreyfus (1991). But using Dreyfus's interpretation has some very important consequences for B&W, and this is that beneath our arguments about the existential vs. the existentiell and the ontological vs. the ontical, etc., there are some deeper differences lurking as regards Heidegger's overall position. The most important concern being how fundamental is the ontological vs. ontical understanding (the ontological difference) in Heidegger's work. I am not entirely convinced that B&W are aware of this in their use of the Dreyfus interpretation. The consequence for them if Dreyfus's interpretation is wrong or very weak is that the philosophy they use to make their nursing theories unique will not be as revolutionary as nurses think. But before we examine this issue we must turn to particular criticisms about my paper by B&W, and their interpretation of Heidegger.

Citation

Horrocks, S. (2004). Saving Heidegger from Benner and Wrubel. Nursing Philosophy, 5(2), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2004.00172.x

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jul 1, 2004
• Deposit Date: Aug 2, 2007
• Journal: Nursing Philosophy
• Print ISSN: 1466-7681
• Publisher: Wiley
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 175-181
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2004.00172.x
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2004.00172.x