The place of topology: responding to Crowell, Beistegui, and Young

The idea of philosophical topology, or topography as I call it outside of the Heideggerian context, has become increasingly central to my work over the last twenty years. While the idea is not indebted only to Heidegger’s thinking, it is probably Heidegger to whom I owe the most. Moreover, one of my claims, central to Heidegger’s Topology, is that Heidegger’s own work cannot adequately be understood except as topological in character, and so as centrally concerned with place – topos, Ort, Ortschaft (which, I should emphasize, is not the same as a concern with space nor with time taken apart from one another, but I shall say more on this below). I do not regard myself as the only person to make this claim, or something like it. In the 1980s, both Joseph Fell and Reiner Schürmann, from very different perspectives, advanced topological readings of Heidegger, or elements of such readings. My own work aims to provide a definitive case for the topological reading of Heidegger’s thinking in its entirety, as well as to articulate an account of topology or topography as itself central to philosophical inquiry. On my account, the attempt to think place, and to think in accord with place, is at the heart of philosophy as such.