Heidegger’s ontology reminds us of our primordial task: to access the question of Being. But, according to Luce Irigaray’s commentary and reaction to Being and Time and Heidegger’s later writings, Heidegger is not able to escape the economy of presence and masculinity that emerges in his discourse. The author here looks closely at Iragaray’s interpretation and counter-arguments before coming to some conclusions about her deconstructive analysis. No doubt, Irigaray offers an interesting analysis of Heidegger using her air metaphor to represent the feminine. But it is odd that she commits herself to there being something essential to air. She ought to utilize a methodology that intends to further deconstruct the identities that are subsumed by what we understand as masculine/feminine and male/female. For her critique to work better, she should avoid using Heidegger’s methodology when formulating an alternative characterization of the complexities of difference.

Included in

Philosophy Commons