{"id":4145,"date":"2010-02-04T01:30:53","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T22:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/"},"modified":"2010-02-04T01:30:53","modified_gmt":"2010-02-03T22:30:53","slug":"heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/","title":{"rendered":"Heidegger’in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Martin Heidegger’in, s\u00fcje kavram\u0131 ile s\u00fcje merkezli Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesikar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki tutumu, onun kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirtti\u011fi \u015fu s\u00f6zlerde a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar: “Fenomenolojiden ge\u00e7erek varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine giden yol” . Heidegger’in b\u00fct\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirleyen ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6neli\u015f, onu s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle yeniden belirlenmesine y\u00f6neltir. Husserl’in; fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemi uygulayarak “Mant\u0131k mcelemeleri”m’n objektivizmi ile realizminden “salt transendental s\u00fcbjektivlik” felsefesinin ontolojik idealizmine giden uzun yolu tam bir tutarl\u0131l\u0131k i\u00e7inde izlemesine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k , Heidegger bunun tersi olan y\u00f6n\u00fc izledi: “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman “da -ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6nelik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015ften hareket ederek- insan varolu\u015funun fenomenolojik tasviri, onu, 20. Y\u00fczy\u0131lda bir \u00e7ok felsef\u00ee \u00e7evrede rastlan\u0131lan bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131na -s\u00fcje’yi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla transendental y\u00f6ntemi a\u015fan bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fc . Ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta “s\u00fcbjektivist” ve “varolu\u015f\u00e7u” olarak yanl\u0131\u015f yorumlanan “varolu\u015f analizi”ni Heidegger “varolu\u015f\u00e7u d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f” y\u00f6n\u00fcnde geli\u015ftirdi. Ona g\u00f6re, bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde “insan\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcne ili\u015fkin soru … insana ili\u015fkin soru de\u011fildir” .<\/p>\n

Husserl’in s\u00fcje’ye y\u00f6nelik transendental fenomenolojisinden k\u00f6kl\u00fc bir bi\u00e7imde ayr\u0131lan bu yakla\u015f\u0131mda, Johannes B. Lotz’un deyi\u015fiyle “insan ki\u015fili\u011fi … ontolojik olarak; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, kendisinin \u00f6teki yan\u0131 olan varl\u0131k arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla verilir” . Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan “ki\u015fi felsefesi asl\u0131nda varl\u0131k felsefesidir” .<\/p>\n

Ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6nelik bu yakla\u015f\u0131m Heidegger’in “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”daki \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemeleri i\u00e7in belirleyici olmu\u015ftur. Varolan’\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir teori, ona g\u00f6re, ancak fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemle ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilebilir oldu\u011fundan; “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”da ama\u00e7lanan, her t\u00fcr varl\u0131k anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n temeli olarak “d\u00fcnyada- olu\u015f”un tasviriydi. Bu ise, onun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce hayat\u0131n\u0131n erken bir d\u00f6neminde -“d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f” olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan d\u00f6nemden \u00e7ok daha \u00f6nce- geleneksel metafizi\u011fin objektivizmine kar\u015f\u0131 bir ele\u015ftiri niteli\u011findeydi. Geleneksel metafizik, Heidegger i\u00e7in, “varolan”\u0131n mutlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir ontolojiye dayan\u0131r . Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k o -bir bak\u0131ma transendental felsefenin amac\u0131na uygun bir \u015fekilde- s\u00fcje’yi d\u00fcnyan\u0131n dinamik bir fakt\u00f6r\u00fc olarak anlamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta Heidegger, Husserl’in transendental fenomenoloj isinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131n\u0131 kendisine hareket noktas\u0131 olarak al\u0131r, fakat “varolu\u015f”un temel belirlenimlerF’ne ili\u015fkin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesinde Husserl’in soyut-idealist yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 a\u015far. Varolu\u015f’un g\u00fcnl\u00fck ya\u015fama ba\u011flant\u0131lar\u0131 i\u00e7indeki zamansall\u0131\u011f\u0131mn analizi Heidegger’i Descartes’\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n k\u00f6kl\u00fc bir ele\u015ftirisine; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, kendisinden \u00f6nceki metafizik anlay\u0131\u015flarda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan statik s\u00fcje-obje ikili\u011finin ele\u015ftirisine y\u00f6neltir . Anlamay\u0131 varolu\u015f’un temel belirlenimi olarak – “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlama” \u015feklinde – ele alan Heidegger, bununla Dilthey’in s\u00fcbjektivizmini, daha do\u011frusu psikolojizmini a\u015far ve hermeneutik’i varolu\u015f ontolojisi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan temellendirir.<\/p>\n

Heidegger, Husserl’de s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n ontoloj\u00eek-idealist mutlakla\u015ftmlmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar; ona g\u00f6re fenomenoloji (ontolojik) idealizm \u015feklinde bir transendental felsefe sistemi de\u011fil, “d\u00fcnyada olu\u015f”un somut bi\u00e7imlerinin tasvirine ili\u015fkin bir y\u00f6ntemdir. “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”da s\u00f6z konusu olan, ontolojinin temellerini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmak amac\u0131yla, s\u00fcbjektifli\u011fi b\u00fct\u00fcn somutlu\u011fuyla analiz etmektir.<\/p>\n

II<\/strong><\/p>\n

Felsefenin ileri bir d\u00f6neminde -“d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”ten sonraki d\u00f6nemde- Heidegger kamuoyunun “varolu\u015f\u00e7uluk”la bir tuttu\u011fu s\u00fcbjektivlik felsefesinden uzakla\u015f\u0131r, bunun yerine (“teknolojik”) Bat\u0131 uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda insan\u0131n kendini anlamas\u0131n\u0131n “varl\u0131k tarihi” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan incelenmesine y\u00f6nelir. Bununla o, s\u00f6zkonusu teknolojik uygarl\u0131kta modern insan\u0131n “kendine ili\u015fkin bilgisinin kesinli\u011fi”ni ele\u015ftirel bir yakla\u015f\u0131mla g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irir . Bu noktada Heidegger “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”\u0131n s\u00fcjeye ba\u011fl\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131n\u0131n yerine, ontolojinin temelleri \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u00f6n plana \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r. Onun “d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f” olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 bu noktada ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar.<\/p>\n

Ana hatlar\u0131 “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”da \u00e7izilen “kendisi olma” ideali , Heidegger’in s\u00fcje \u00fczerine varolu\u015f\u00e7u a\u00e7\u0131dan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc simgeler; “kendisi olma” iste\u011fi, Heidegger’in “d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”ten sonraki d\u00f6neminde varl\u0131k tarihi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan sorgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir iradecili\u011fi temsil eder. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihine ili\u015fkin geni\u015f kapsaml\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemelerinde Heidegger -“metafizik” olarak niteledi\u011fi belli bir tutumu-insan\u0131n nesnele\u015ftirme; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 denetim alt\u0131na alma iste\u011fini- soru\u015fturur.<\/p>\n

D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde, Bat\u0131’da ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan varl\u0131k anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131, daha do\u011frusu, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f’un ele al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemeler, varl\u0131k tarihi \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f \u015feklinde kendini g\u00f6sterir. Buradan hareketle Heidegger yeni \u00e7a\u011f teknolojisinin ger\u00e7eklik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile teknolojik uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n insan\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc tan\u0131maz “yapabilirlik” tavr\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ele\u015ftirici bir tart\u0131\u015fma a\u00e7ar . S\u00f6z konusu anlay\u0131\u015f ve tavr\u0131n temelini Heidegger; Bat\u0131 insan\u0131n\u0131n “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f”unda ve buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak s\u00fcjenin mutlakla\u015ft\u0131nlmas\u0131 ve varolan’in nesnelle\u015ftirilmesi ile denetim alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

Ona g\u00f6re, Bat\u0131 d\u00fcnyas\u0131n\u0131n “metafizik” temel e\u011filimini olu\u015fturan da budur: “\u0130nsan\u0131n metafizik yan\u0131n\u0131n anlam\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi, insan\u0131n belirleyici temel \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n sonucudur” Bu bak\u0131mdan Heidegger g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde ye\u015fil alternatif hareket ile postmodern d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fte ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan teknoloji ve uygarl\u0131k ele\u015ftirisinin \u00f6nc\u00fcs\u00fc olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. Fakat onun s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n mutlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na y\u00f6neltti\u011fi ele\u015ftiri, \u00e7e\u015fitli “alternatif ya da “postmodern” ideolojilerden \u00e7ok daha fazla d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihine ve ontolojik bir arka plana dayan\u0131r.<\/p>\n

S\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin felsefesi yerine Heidegger varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n felsefesini; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, varl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc getirmek ister. Bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fte -varl\u0131k deneyimine ili\u015fkin somut varolu\u015fsal yap\u0131lar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 olarak- s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin tasviri yaln\u0131zca y\u00f6ntem a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131r. Fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemin arka plan\u0131n\u0131 ontolojik hareket noktas\u0131 olu\u015fturur: “Mahiyetin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 olarak fenomenoloji felsefeyi belirtiyorsa ve felsefenin y\u00f6n verici sorusu \u00f6teden beri de\u011fi\u015fik \u015fekillerde de olsa varolan’m varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorusu olarak y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte kalm\u0131\u015fsa, o zaman varl\u0131k, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin ilk ve son konusu olarak kalmal\u0131d\u0131r” . Bu bak\u0131mdan Heidegger’in temel amac\u0131 Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin “varl\u0131k tarihi” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan izledi\u011fi yolu yeniden kurmak ve merkezinde “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f”un yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin s\u00fcje merkezli karakteristi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmakt\u0131r. Heidegger’e g\u00f6re s\u00f6z konusu “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f” “a\u015f\u0131lma”s\u0131 gerekendir.<\/p>\n

Belirgin \u00f6rne\u011fini Descartes’m y\u00f6ntemli d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde bulan “kendim temellendirme”nin aray\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7indeki Yeni\u00e7a\u011f d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin izledi\u011fi yol Heidegger’e g\u00f6re iradeci bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr ve bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc “metafizik” Yeni\u00e7a\u011f teknolojisinde kendini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r . “Varl\u0131k Tarihine ili\u015fkin bu yol, Heidegger’in verdi\u011fi \u00f6rneklerle burada ana hatlar\u0131yla belirtilmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lacak.<\/p>\n

Heidegger i\u00e7in, Hegel’in felsefesi bu yol \u00fczerindeki bir g\u00f6sterge niteli\u011findedir. Ona g\u00f6re, s\u00fcje’yi mutlakla\u015ft\u0131rma e\u011filimi Hegel’in felsefesinde belli bir son noktaya ula\u015f\u0131r. Hegel’in sisteminde s\u00fcje kendi -bilincinde- olu\u015f’un en y\u00fcksek basama\u011f\u0131nda bilginin mutlak kesinli\u011fi bi\u00e7iminde kendini g\u00f6sterir: “Akl\u0131n ko\u015fulsuz s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fi iradeye dayanan kendi -bilincinde- olu\u015f’tur. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle: Ak\u0131l mutlak tin’dir. Bu anlamda ak\u0131l ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olan’\u0131n mutlak ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi, varolan’m varl\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r” . B\u00f6ylece Hegel’de mutlak kendi -bilincinde- olu\u015f d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin ilkesi olur. Heidegger’e g\u00f6re bu noktada Bat\u0131’mn a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 iradecili\u011fi; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, “istenilen, fakat mahiyeti bilinmeyen … bir s\u00fcre\u00e7 olarak … yery\u00fcz\u00fcn\u00fcn y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131”na giden bir yol ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Nitekim eski Yunanl\u0131lardan beri “do\u011fruluk, insan\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme ve yapabilmesinin kendinden emin oldu\u011fu kesinlik \u015feklinde belirlenmi\u015ftir” . K\u00f6kleri Platon ve Aristotales’e kadar geri giden s\u00fcbjektivlik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi Heidegger’e g\u00f6re; Yeni\u00e7a\u011fda Descartes’in “cogito sum” anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen s\u00fcje i\u00e7in do\u011frulu\u011fa giden yol olarak bilimsel y\u00f6ntem \u00f6\u011fretisinde klasik \u00f6rne\u011fini bulur. “Do\u011fruluk” ve “kesinli\u011fi” sa\u011flayan bu y\u00f6ntem arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla “insan kendisi i\u00e7in ko\u015fulsuz kesinli\u011fi arar ve do\u011frulu\u011fun mahiyetinin s\u0131n\u0131rlan bu y\u00f6ntemle \u00e7izilir” . \u0130nsan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin emin ad\u0131mlarla y\u00fcr\u00fcyebilece\u011fi, “do\u011frulu\u011fun sars\u0131lmaz temeli” olarak bir son temele ili\u015fkin soru Heidegger’e g\u00f6re -Leibniz’in a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a form\u00fcle etti\u011fi- yeterli neden ilkesinde ifadesini bulur. Bu ilke, yorumland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, do\u011frulu\u011fu kesin bir \u015fekilde elde etmek isteyen s\u00fcje ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r. Heidegger i\u00e7in bu ilke “atom \u00e7a\u011f\u0131”na \u00f6zg\u00fc hesaplayan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn egemenli\u011finin habercisidir; ona g\u00f6re “yeterli neden ilkesi kesinli\u011fi sa\u011flayan hesap edi\u015f anlam\u0131nda ak\u0131lc\u0131 tasarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n ilkesidir”‘. “Tasarlay\u0131\u015fta s\u00fcje olarak ben’le ba\u011flant\u0131 i\u00e7inde, ben’in \u00f6n\u00fcne konulan varolan, s\u00fcje i\u00e7in obje olma \u00f6zelli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131r” . Objektif kategorilerle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesinin nedeni, s\u00fcjenin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi kavramaya y\u00f6nelmesi ve bunun i\u00e7in ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi kendi bilincinin \u00f6n\u00fcne getirmek zorunda olmas\u0131d\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece ger\u00e7eklik “kendinden emin tasarlay\u0131\u015f taraf\u0131ndan ve tasarlay\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in, varolan’in bilin\u00e7 -\u00f6n\u00fcne- getirilmi\u015fli\u011fi durumuna gelir” .<\/p>\n

S\u00fcje merkezli bir yakla\u015f\u0131m Heidegger’e g\u00f6re, belirgin \u00f6rne\u011fini Leibniz’in monadolojisinde bulur. Burada Leibniz evreni dinamik bir \u015fekilde kendisiyle ba\u011flant\u0131ya getiren, evreni kendinde “temsil eden” ve en y\u00fcksek basama\u011f\u0131na kendine ili\u015fkin bilginin kesinli\u011finde (apperceptio) ula\u015fan monad’m tasarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na (perceptio) ili\u015fkin bir teori kurar. Canl\u0131 s\u00fcje olarak anla\u015f\u0131lan t\u00f6z her \u015feyi kendisiyle ba\u011flant\u0131ya getiren d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin y\u00f6nelimi (appetitus) a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan “b\u00fct\u00fcn evreni kendi bak\u0131\u015f noktas\u0131na g\u00f6re yans\u0131tan canl\u0131 bir ayna ve bir merkez (Gerh VII. n. 87) olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. \u00c7e\u015fitlili\u011fin birle\u015ftirilmesi ve belli bir s\u00fcjeyle ba\u011flant\u0131ya getirilmesi olarak monad’\u0131n “birlikli olu\u015f”u (yal\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131) “kendi \u00f6n\u00fcne getiri\u015f \u00f6zelli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131r”. Bu ise varolan’\u0131 denetim alt\u0131na alma e\u011filimini ifade eden, i\u00e7 dinamizmle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen bir s\u00fcre\u00e7 olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. “Tasarlay\u0131\u015f” olarak monad irad\u00ee \u00f6zelli\u011fi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla varolan’\u0131 kendi bilinci \u00f6n\u00fcne getirir. T\u00f6z\u00fcn bu irad\u00ee \u00f6zelli\u011fi ve varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n tasarlan\u0131\u015f \u00f6zelli\u011finin -y\u00f6nelimin y\u00f6neldi\u011fi ama\u00e7lara ula\u015fmas\u0131nda bir ara\u00e7 olarak- bu irad\u00ee \u00f6zelli\u011fe ba\u011flan\u0131\u015f\u0131 Heidegger’e g\u00f6re klasik ifadesini Hegel’in sisteminde bulur. Heidegger i\u00e7in bu sistem “\u00f6z\u00fcnde irade olarak anla\u015f\u0131lan ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi” temsil eder. Burada “varl\u0131k \u015f\u00fcphe g\u00f6t\u00fcrmeyen tasarlanm\u0131\u015fl\u0131k anlam\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekliktir” . <\/p>\n

Bilin\u00e7, bu durumda, bak\u0131\u015f noktas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 kuvvet merkezi, “kesinli\u011fe y\u00f6neli\u015f”in, Prometheus’\u00e7a d\u0131\u015fa uzan\u0131\u015f\u0131n ve ayn\u0131 zamanda varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015fun yeridir. Bu yakla\u015f\u0131m transendental felsefede sistematik olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen “s\u00fcjeye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”le i\u00e7ten ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r. “S\u00fcje” burada “temelde yatan” (sub-jectum) anlam\u0131nda, kendisine her t\u00fcrl\u00fc tasarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fey olarak anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r. Bu \u015fekilde anla\u015f\u0131lan bilin\u00e7 Heidegger’e g\u00f6re “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n do\u011frulukla yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, do\u011frulu\u011fu varolan’a b\u0131rakmas\u0131 ve varolan’\u0131 hakikatten yoksun b\u0131rakmas\u0131d\u0131r”.<\/p>\n

Bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle Heidegger, Husserl’in fenomenolojik yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ayr\u0131l\u0131r. S\u00fcjenin aktivli\u011finden kaynaklanan ve bilime ili\u015fkin her t\u00fcr temellendirme denemesinin dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 “mutlak \u00f6zerkli\u011fe y\u00f6neli\u015f”, Heidegger’in “Kendini Varl\u0131\u011fa B\u0131rakmak” ve “H\u00fcmanizm Mektuplar\u0131” adl\u0131 yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda dile getirdi\u011fi gibi, s\u00fcje-obje ayr\u0131m\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan, saf bir bak\u0131\u015fa yer vermez. Bu ba\u011flamda Heidegger “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme”yi teori-pratik ayr\u0131m\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, b\u00f6yle bir ayr\u0131m\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumda ise teorinin yaln\u0131zca pratik taraf\u0131ndan, di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, teknolojik yapabilirlik taraf\u0131ndan belirlendi\u011fini s\u00f6yler .<\/p>\n

S\u00fcje kendini objeden ay\u0131ran “\u00f6zerk” bir tutumla objeyi kendi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na ald\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve bu yolla edindi\u011fi bilin\u00e7le her t\u00fcr varh\u011f\u0131 ‘”objektivlik” olarak bilince ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, varl\u0131k Heidegger’in deyi\u015fiyle hi\u00e7 bir zaman varl\u0131k olarak a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kmaz. Bu imk\u00e2n\u0131 ba\u015ftan beri elden ka\u00e7\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olan bilin\u00e7 “subjectum” olarak kendi tek’ligi i\u00e7inde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle iradecili\u011fe ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in kendi bireysel ufkunu a\u015fan bir \u015feye kendini a\u00e7amaz. Kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fma bu yolla safl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yitirir; kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131lan \u015fey “nesne durumuna getirilir” .<\/p>\n

B\u00f6ylece Yeni\u00e7a\u011f\u0131n “nesnellik” anlam\u0131na gelen “objektivli\u011fi” Heidegger’e g\u00f6re “s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin” ifadesidir; “s\u00fcbjektivizm, \u00f6z\u00fcnde, s\u00fcje i\u00e7in her \u015fey obje oldu\u011fundan, objektivizm’dir” . Modern do\u011fa biliminin benimsedi\u011fi bu t\u00fcrden bir “nesnellik” anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131nda “ger\u00e7ek d\u00fcnya olarak anla\u015f\u0131lan hesaplanabilir do\u011fa insan\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn ilgisini \u00fcst\u00fcne \u00e7eker ve insan\u0131n tekrarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 salt hesaplay\u0131c\u0131 bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr” . S\u00fcje olarak belirlenen insan, fark\u0131nda olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, kendi “tasarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 her \u015feyin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc durumuna getirir . Bu bak\u0131mdan, Heidegger’e g\u00f6re Kant’ta varl\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f’\u00fcn imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131n ko\u015fulu olarak “varolan, Hegel’de ise “ko\u015fulsuz kendini g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131\u015f” \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r. “Kendini g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe \u00e7\u0131karan ko\u015fulsuz tasarlay\u0131\u015f (d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f) olarak ko\u015fulsuz s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin her t\u00fcr varolan’\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n tarz\u0131” ise “fenomen” ad\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131r. Heidegger i\u00e7in, asl\u0131nda bir fenomenoloji olmayan bu t\u00fcrden bir fenomenolojide, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme s\u00fcrecine y\u00f6n veren ve temele y\u00f6nelik aray\u0131\u015fta kendisine dayanan ak\u0131l; “ko\u015fulsuz s\u00fcbjektivlik”tir .<\/p>\n

Leibniz’in monad kavram\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131nda, Heidegger’in “merkezle\u015fme” olarak niteledi\u011fi ve “Yeni\u00e7a\u011f metafizi\u011finin alan\u0131”n\u0131 olu\u015fturan bu t\u00fcrden bir bilin\u00e7, her \u015feyi kendisine ba\u011flama ve b\u00fct\u00fcn \u015feyleri “kendinde toplama” \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu \u00e7aba ise iradenin mahiyetinin d\u0131\u015fa vurumudur . Bu iradenin “ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi”, bak\u0131\u015f noktas\u0131na g\u00f6re nesneleri s\u00fcjeyle ba\u011flant\u0131ya getiri\u015f olarak “temellendirme iste\u011fi’dir. B\u00f6ylece varl\u0131k problemi ger\u00e7eklik problemi durumuna gelir. Ancak bu istekten vazge\u00e7ildi\u011finde -Heidegger i\u00e7in “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f” metafizik iradecili\u011fin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yer al\u0131r-, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 saklayan temelin aranmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir alana ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131r. Leibniz; “nas\u0131l oluyor da bir \u015fey vard\u0131r ve hi\u00e7lik var de\u011fildir?” sorusunu sordu\u011funda, Heidegger’in “Metafizik Nedir?” adl\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131nda sordu\u011fundan farkl\u0131 olarak, varolan’\u0131 en y\u00fcksek bir varolan’da temellendirmek istiyordu. Yeterli neden ilkesini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmekle, Leibniz -Heidegger’in yorumuna g\u00f6re- s\u00fcjeyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olu\u015f’un d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karak varl\u0131kla olan temel ba\u011flant\u0131ya ge\u00e7emedi. Hegel’de -do\u011frulu\u011fun belirlenmesinde \u00e7oktan beri meydana gelmi\u015f olan de\u011fi\u015fim a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan- s\u00f6z konusu temellendirme iste\u011fi, Heidegger’e g\u00f6re, \u015fu en tutarl\u0131 \u015feklini -kendisinin mutlak oldu\u011funu bilen ve mutlak olan’m kendini g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe \u00e7\u0131karmas\u0131 olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihini kendi i\u00e7ine alan bilincin kendini temellendirmesi \u015feklini al\u0131r. Do\u011frulu\u011fun \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc son \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmde “kendisiyle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rma”da bulan bu t\u00fcrden bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn mutlak etkinli\u011fi, Heidegger’e g\u00f6re, ayn\u0131 zamanda “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n olumsuzlu\u011fu”na, asl\u0131nda “subjektiv” olan objektivli\u011fiyle sadece varolan’a g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Objektiv olarak tasarlanabilen, kavranabilen hi\u00e7 bir zaman varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 “temel-d\u0131\u015f\u0131” olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnemedi\u011finden, daha do\u011frusu -d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin her zaman kavramlara dayanmas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan- varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n “temel-d\u0131\u015f\u0131” olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, “temellendirme” “temelsiz”li\u011fe g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Bu y\u00fczden Yeni\u00e7a\u011f’m anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlamda “ak\u0131l” ikinci dereceden olan \u00f6zelli\u011fiyle g\u00f6r\u00fclmelidir: “Y\u00fczy\u0131llardan beri y\u00fcceltilen akl\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin en \u00e7etin d\u00fc\u015fman\u0131 oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fczde, ancak o zaman
d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme ba\u015flar” .<\/p>\n

Heidegger’in burada \u00f6nerdi\u011fi biricik ve ayn\u0131 zamanda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi hemen hemen imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan tutum “tasarlay\u0131c\u0131 temellendirme”den vazge\u00e7i\u015f, s\u00fcje-obje \u015femas\u0131na g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc bir yana b\u0131rak\u0131\u015f, bunun yerine b\u00f6yle bir ayr\u0131m i\u00e7inde yer almayan “varl\u0131\u011fa yak\u0131n olu\u015f”un tutumudur: “… her temellendirme varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 varolan bir \u015feye indirir” . Objektivli\u011fin formlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde, varl\u0131k varolan .durumuna gelir. Bu y\u00fczden Heidegger’e g\u00f6re, bu t\u00fcrden bir “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f” b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle bir yana b\u0131rak\u0131lmal\u0131; varl\u0131\u011fa ili\u015fkin deneyimin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi isteniyorsa, \u00f6rt\u00fck bir \u015fekilde “g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc olma iste\u011fi”nin tarihi olarak b\u00fct\u00fcn Bat\u0131 tarihinden vazge\u00e7ilmelidir. Ancak b\u00f6yle bir uzakla\u015fmayla, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n unutmu\u015flu\u011fu farkedildi\u011finde, tarihin mahiyeti anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r . Bu \u015fekilde anla\u015f\u0131lan vazge\u00e7i\u015f nesnelle\u015ftirici d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcs\u00fcn yenilgisine ve yeni bir ba\u015flang\u0131ca yol a\u00e7ar. “Vazge\u00e7i\u015f almaz, Vazge\u00e7i\u015f verir” .<\/p>\n

Kendini tasarlay\u0131\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn yetersizli\u011fini g\u00f6ren s\u00fcjenin varl\u0131k \u00f6n\u00fcnde geri \u00e7ekili\u015fi, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fe \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na ula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r: “… \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kan, \u00f6nce olan olarak kendinden olagelen kendi ayd\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kar,ve bununla insana y\u00f6nelir” . \u0130radecili\u011fin belirledi\u011fi kendi -bilince- olu\u015f anlam\u0131nda olmayan bu ar\u0131nm\u0131\u015f bilin\u00e7 varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bar\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer”dir . \u0130nsan Heidegger’e g\u00f6re varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu geli\u015fine kendini haz\u0131rlayabilir, fakat bu geli\u015fi kendi iste\u011fiyle sa\u011flayamaz. Varl\u0131kla uygunluk i\u00e7inde olmaya dayanan kendi \u00f6z\u00fcne insan ula\u015fmak istedi\u011finde, bir “sub-jectum” olarak kendisini b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle geride b\u0131rakmal\u0131, yeniden kesin do\u011frulu\u011fa ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in de\u011fil, “yakalanamaz” olan olarak “dolayl\u0131 olan’in her t\u00fcr dolays\u0131z yakla\u015f\u0131\u015f\u0131m geri \u00e7eviren” varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sesine kendini a\u00e7\u0131k -tutmak i\u00e7in, kendini bir yana b\u0131rakmal\u0131d\u0131r. Hep \u015fimdi ve burada olan, insan tasarlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n “ger\u00e7eklik”ten hareket eden her t\u00fcr a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda kendini geri \u00e7eker . Heidegger’in varl\u0131k tarihi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesinde Bat\u0131 metafizi\u011finin temellerine y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftirinin amac\u0131 “kayna\u011f\u0131n yak\u0131nma d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f” olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin “eve d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc”d\u00fcr. Bununla varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n unutulmu\u015flu\u011funu a\u015fmak ve bilincin daha ele\u015ftirici bir tutuma ula\u015fmas\u0131 sa\u011flanmak istenir.<\/p>\n

Temellerini sarsmaya y\u00f6neldi\u011fi Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine \u00f6zg\u00fc varl\u0131k anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n arka plan\u0131nda, Heidegger’e g\u00f6re, nesnele\u015ftirici bilince dayanan ve teknoloji bi\u00e7iminde d\u0131\u015fa vuran iradecilik ve onun yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f yer al\u0131r. Bilin\u00e7 Heidegger i\u00e7in “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n do\u011frulukla yer de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi; di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle do\u011frulu\u011fu varolana b\u0131rakmas\u0131 ve varolan ‘\u0131 hakikatten yoksun b\u0131rakmas\u0131d\u0131r” \u0130radecili\u011fin belirledi\u011fi bilin\u00e7 her \u015feyi kavramla\u015ft\u0131rmaya, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 nesnellik kategorisiyle kavramaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r: ” ‘Varolan s\u00fcbjektivliktir’ile: ‘Varolan objektivliktir’ayn\u0131 anlama gelir” .<\/p>\n

Yeni\u00e7a\u011f teknolojisinin iradecili\u011finden bu kararl\u0131 uzakla\u015f\u0131\u015f Heidegger’in ontolojisi ba\u011flam\u0131nda yaln\u0131zca s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n ve onunla birlikte transendental felsefe ile Descartes’\u00e7\u0131 d\u00fcnya anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc b\u00fct\u00fcn ontoiojik yap\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmekle kalmaz, kendisinin meydana getirdi\u011fi teknolojik \u00fcr\u00fcnler d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda insan\u0131n kendim anlamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin yeni bir y\u00f6neli\u015fi de beraberinde getirir.<\/p>\n

Bat\u0131 metafizi\u011finin “a\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinden hareketle, Heidegger insan\u0131 yaln\u0131zca ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu “i\u00e7” psikolojik kanunlar -ontoiojik yap\u0131lar- a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan inceleyen ve varl\u0131k sorusuyla y\u00fczy\u00fcze gelmekten ka\u00e7\u0131nan bir “insan teorisi”ne kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar. Bu t\u00fcrden bir antropolojide temelini bulan “h\u00fcmanizm” Heidegger’e g\u00f6re insan\u0131 insandan hareketle anlama istedi\u011fi, fakat b\u00f6yle bir anlaman\u0131n -insan ve onun denetimi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bulunan- temelleri dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, salt ontik ba\u011flant\u0131lar d\u00fczleminde kal\u0131r. Bu durumda insan ontoiojik problem ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7inde g\u00f6r\u00fclmek yerine yal\u0131t\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ” bir s\u00fcje olarak tasarlan\u0131r; insan \u00fczerine her t\u00fcr d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f, antropoloji olarak anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r .<\/p>\n

S\u00fcje merkezli felsef\u00ee bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Heidegger’in bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi son derece “insanl\u0131k d\u0131\u015f\u0131”, insan\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131ran ve insan\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle yabanc\u0131 bir \u015feye ba\u011flayan bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. B\u00f6yle bir yakla\u015f\u0131m burada “insana ili\u015fkin olan’\u0131n insandan farkl\u0131 olan’a” ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 k\u0131l\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131m \u00f6ne s\u00fcrebilir ve – Jean Paul Sartre’da oldu\u011fu gibi- varolu\u015f\u00e7ulu\u011fun iradecilik taraf\u0131ndan belirlenen s\u00fcje kavram\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, bu yakla\u015f\u0131m Heidegger’in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini “insanc\u0131ll\u0131k” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan bir tehlike olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcr.
III<\/p>\n

B\u00f6ylece Heidegger’e g\u00f6re hakikatin metafizikteki anlam\u0131 s\u00fcjenin varolan \u00fczerinde denetim kurmas\u0131yla belirlenir. Bu t\u00fcrden bir metafizik ba\u011flam\u0131nda varl\u0131k; “\u015f\u00fcphe g\u00f6t\u00fcrmez tasarlanm\u0131\u015fl\u0131k anlam\u0131nda ger\u00e7eklik”tir . Bu ise hakikate ili\u015fkin olarak s\u00fcje-obje aras\u0131ndaki uygunluk kavram\u0131n\u0131n y\u00f6n verdi\u011fi Yeni\u00e7a\u011f “teknoloji”sinin ontoiojik \u00e7er\u00e7evesini olu\u015fturur . Heidegger’in “d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”ten sonra de\u011fi\u015fik \u015fekillerde vurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, onun, “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”daki insan varolu\u015funun “at\u0131lm\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131” kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda varolu\u015f deneyiminin dolays\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemeleriyle \u00e7eli\u015fki i\u00e7inde midir? Heidegger’in ilk d\u00f6neminde s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin ontolojik konumu varl\u0131k deneyimine ili\u015fkin metodolojik bir i\u015flev mi g\u00f6rmekte?- sonraki d\u00f6nemde ise s\u00fcje kavram\u0131 Yeni\u00e7a\u011f insan\u0131n\u0131n iradecilikte belirlenen ger\u00e7eklik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir \u00f6\u011fe olarak m\u0131 ele al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r? Her iki d\u00f6nemde de Heidegger’in as\u0131l amac\u0131 varl\u0131k deneyimine ili\u015fkin olarak g\u00fcndelik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 bu anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n temeline inerek “a\u015fan” bir tasvirini yapmaktad\u0131r. Bu ontolojik y\u00f6nelim “kendisi olmak” ile “herkes alam”na “d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f olmak” aras\u0131ndaki gerilim i\u00e7indeki insan\u0131n “d\u00fcnyada-olu\u015f”u \u00fcst\u00fcne Heidegger’in “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”daki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerinin arka plan\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. Onun “d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”ten sonra -varolu\u015f ontolojisi ba\u011flam\u0131nda- \u00fczerinde en \u00e7ok durdu\u011fu konu olan Bat\u0131 uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc anlay\u0131\u015f tarz\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6kl\u00fc bir bi\u00e7imde sorgulan\u0131\u015f\u0131 ancak bu arka planla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak anla\u015f\u0131labilir. Bat\u0131 insan\u0131n\u0131n kendini anlay\u0131\u015f tarz\u0131nda yer alan s\u00fcbjektivlik kavram\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fma kayg\u0131s\u0131 Heidegger i\u00e7in her iki d\u00f6nemde de y\u00f6n vericidir Heidegger s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin t\u00f6z durumuna getirili\u015fi ile mutlakla\u015ft\u0131nlmas\u0131n\u0131n yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7lara i\u015faret eder ve evrensel teknolojik yapabilirlik inanc\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ele\u015ftiri s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin ele\u015ftirisi \u015feklini al\u0131r. Varl\u0131k tarihine ili\u015fkin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemeleri hemen hemen b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle s\u00fcbjektivlik, nesnele\u015ftirme ve teknoloji konular\u0131 \u00e7evresinde toplan\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Son \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmde Heidegger i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu olan, iradecili\u011fin \u00f6tesinde insan\u0131n kendi kendine olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu; gerek “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”daki “as\u0131l” varolu\u015f idealinin tasviri, gerekse onun sonraki d\u00f6neminde metafizik sonras\u0131 varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ba\u011flam\u0131nda “kendini varl\u0131\u011fa b\u0131rak\u0131\u015f” idealinin tasviri i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erlidir. E\u011fer ontoloji “ancak fenomenoloji olarak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnse” , bu durumda s\u00fcbjektivlik her ne kadar ba\u015ftan beri d\u0131\u015far\u0131da b\u0131rak\u0131lamasa da, bu kavram\u0131n ancak fundamental ontolojinin olabilirlik ko\u015fulu olarak (ontolojik de\u011fil) transe\u0131\u0131dental bir yeri olabilir. S\u00fcbjektivlik insan\u0131n do\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131m ve d\u00fcnyan\u0131n efendisi olmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan kendi ba\u015f\u0131na,
ontolojik bir kategori de\u011fildir. Teknolojik uygarl\u0131\u011fa \u00f6zg\u00fc bir giri\u015fim Heidegger’e g\u00f6re -teknolojinin mutlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f yapabilirlik tutkusuyla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olarak- y\u0131k\u0131c\u0131 etkileri hen\u00fcz g\u00f6r\u00fclmeye ba\u015flanan evrensel \u00e7apta “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f” pahas\u0131na m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Heidegger’in “d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f”ten sonraki son d\u00f6nem felsefesi b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle “s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin nesnele\u015ftirici metafizi\u011fi”ni “a\u015fmak” amac\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Bu metafizik, ona g\u00f6re, en belirgin ifadesini “teknoloji”de bulur. \u0130nsan\u0131n kendini ortaya koyma iste\u011finin m\u00fctlakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 olarak “teknoloji”yi Heidegger “insan\u0131 harekete getiren ve insan\u0131n art\u0131k ona kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olamad\u0131\u011f\u0131” bir g\u00fc\u00e7 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

B\u00f6ylece o “Varl\u0131k ve Zaman”daki kendi iradeci yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 varl\u0131k tarihi ba\u011flam\u0131nda g\u00f6receli bir duruma getirir; -kendisine ili\u015fkin yorumunda belirtti\u011fi gibi- daha \u00f6nceki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f tarz\u0131n\u0131 a\u015far ve varolu\u015f analizini varolu\u015f\u00e7u-s\u00fcbjektivist yorum dayanaklar\u0131ndan s\u0131y\u0131r\u0131r. Bu bak\u0131mdan Heidegger, kli\u015fe bi\u00e7imindeki basitle\u015ftirmelere kap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n bir \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde postmodern d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn \u00f6nc\u00fcs\u00fc say\u0131labilir. Varolu\u015fun varl\u0131k tarzlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin analiz Heidegger’i \u00f6nce varolu\u015f ontolojisine ili\u015fkin bir kategori olarak zamansall\u0131k kavram\u0131na g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fc. Fakat s\u00fcjenin “zamansalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131”n\u0131 o, ba\u015ftan beri varl\u0131k tarihi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, statik s\u00fcje-obje kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bununla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olan iradeci- teknolojik d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc a\u015fmak durumundayd\u0131. Bu bakitndan, -Bat\u0131 “s\u00fcbjektivizm”inin kapsaml\u0131 bir ele\u015ftirisi olarak- Heideggerin son d\u00f6nemindeki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceleri, post-modernizmin iradeci \u00f6\u011felere yer veren s\u00fcje ele\u015ftirisinden \u00e7ok Zen Budizm’inin d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyle ortak \u00f6zellikler ta\u015f\u0131r. “Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 unutu\u015f”un ele\u015ftirisiyle, Heidegger teknolojik-uygarl\u0131k insan\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ayna tutar ve mutlak g\u00f6z\u00fcyle bak\u0131lan bir s\u00fcbjektivli\u011fin yapabilirlik tutkusu i\u00e7inde kendinden ka\u00e7an insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n iradeci bir yan\u0131lg\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir.<\/p>\n

\u00c7eviren: Dr. Ak\u0131n ETAN<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Martin Heidegger’in, s\u00fcje kavram\u0131 ile s\u00fcje merkezli Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesikar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki tutumu, onun kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirtti\u011fi \u015fu s\u00f6zlerde a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar: “Fenomenolojiden ge\u00e7erek varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine giden yol” . Heidegger’in b\u00fct\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirleyen ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6neli\u015f, onu s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle yeniden belirlenmesine y\u00f6neltir. Husserl’in; fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemi uygulayarak “Mant\u0131k mcelemeleri”m’n objektivizmi ile realizminden “salt transendental s\u00fcbjektivlik” felsefesinin ontolojik […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-martin-heidegger"],"yoast_head":"\nHeidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER - narteks.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Heidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Martin Heidegger’in, s\u00fcje kavram\u0131 ile s\u00fcje merkezli Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesikar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki tutumu, onun kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirtti\u011fi \u015fu s\u00f6zlerde a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar: “Fenomenolojiden ge\u00e7erek varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine giden yol” . Heidegger’in b\u00fct\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirleyen ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6neli\u015f, onu s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle yeniden belirlenmesine y\u00f6neltir. Husserl’in; fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemi uygulayarak “Mant\u0131k mcelemeleri”m’n objektivizmi ile realizminden “salt transendental s\u00fcbjektivlik” felsefesinin ontolojik […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"narteks.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"90\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Yazan:\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\"},\"headline\":\"Heidegger’in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\"},\"wordCount\":4417,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Martin HE\u0130DEGGER\"],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\",\"name\":\"Heidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER - narteks.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Heidegger’in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"description\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"narteks.net\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/narteks\",\"https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\",\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tar\u0131k\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/narteks.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Heidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER - narteks.net","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Heidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER","og_description":"Martin Heidegger’in, s\u00fcje kavram\u0131 ile s\u00fcje merkezli Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesikar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki tutumu, onun kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirtti\u011fi \u015fu s\u00f6zlerde a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar: “Fenomenolojiden ge\u00e7erek varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine giden yol” . Heidegger’in b\u00fct\u00fcn d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce yolunu belirleyen ontolojinin temellerine y\u00f6neli\u015f, onu s\u00fcje kavram\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle yeniden belirlenmesine y\u00f6neltir. Husserl’in; fenomenolojik y\u00f6ntemi uygulayarak “Mant\u0131k mcelemeleri”m’n objektivizmi ile realizminden “salt transendental s\u00fcbjektivlik” felsefesinin ontolojik […]","og_url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/","og_site_name":"narteks.net","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":90,"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Tar\u0131k","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@narteks","twitter_site":"@narteks","twitter_misc":{"Yazan:":"Tar\u0131k","Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"22 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/"},"author":{"name":"Tar\u0131k","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca"},"headline":"Heidegger’in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER","datePublished":"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/"},"wordCount":4417,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Martin HE\u0130DEGGER"],"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/","name":"Heidegger'in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER - narteks.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T22:30:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/02\/04\/heideggerin-ontolojisinde-suje-kavrami-hans-kochler\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Heidegger’in Ontolojisinde S\u00fcje Kavram\u0131 | Hans K\u00d6CHLER"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","name":"narteks.net","description":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization","name":"narteks.net","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","width":300,"height":90,"caption":"narteks.net"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/narteks","https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca","name":"Tar\u0131k","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tar\u0131k"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/narteks.net"],"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}