Darbyshire P, Diekelmann J, Diekelmann N
Department of Nursing & Midwifery Research & Practice Development, Women's & Children's Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia.
Nurs Inq. 1999 Mar;6(1):17-25. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1800.1999.00004.x.
In a recent paper in Nursing Inquiry and in his other work, Michael Crotty was severely critical of much interpretive nursing scholarship and especially of some nurse scholars' interpretations of the work of Martin Heidegger. In this paper we respond to Crotty's attempt to set out what Heidegger 'actually says' [sic] in relation to tradition, culture, destruction, das Man and everydayness. We suggest that Crotty took a narrow, existentialist view of Heidegger's work and that this view was often misguided and poorly informed. We show not only that an alternative understanding of Heidegger's work in these important areas is possible, but that this interpretation is strongly supported by a deeper and wider reading of Heidegger's own work and of the secondary literature of Heideggerian scholarship.
在近期发表于《护理探究》的一篇论文以及他的其他著作中,迈克尔·克罗蒂严厉批评了许多诠释性护理学术研究,尤其是一些护士学者对马丁·海德格尔著作的解读。在本文中,我们回应克罗蒂试图阐述海德格尔在传统、文化、解构、常人以及日常性等方面“实际所说内容”的尝试。我们认为,克罗蒂对海德格尔的著作采取了一种狭隘的存在主义观点,而这种观点常常具有误导性且缺乏充分的依据。我们不仅表明在这些重要领域对海德格尔著作存在另一种可能的理解,而且这种解读得到了对海德格尔本人著作以及海德格尔学术研究二手文献更深入、更广泛阅读的有力支持。