Did Wittgenstein read Heidigger? A dialogue on the subject of a ride

In this engaging and fiery dialogue between two prominent philosophers, Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein, the focal point of their debate revolves around the decision of whether to use a taxi or an Uber for transportation. It quickly transcends beyond a mere matter of transport, evolving into a heated examination of modernity, authenticity, and the ontology of being.

Heidegger, a seminal figure in existentialism and phenomenology, is an advocate for the taxi, which he views as a representation of an authentic connection to history and a palpable link to the lived world. In his view, the taxi symbolizes a sense of rootedness and, as such, it epitomizes the essence of Being. This perspective resonates with his broader philosophical outlook, characterized by an emphasis on authenticity and the primacy of lived experience.

Wittgenstein, on the other hand, a central figure in analytic philosophy known for his work in philosophy of language and mind, argues for Uber, viewing it as a manifestation of the modern era and the atomization of society. He dismisses Heidegger's romanticization of the past, insisting that both taxi and Uber are services within the world that function in similar ways. His arguments reflect his pragmatic and factual approach to language and meaning.

As the dialogue progresses, the dispute becomes progressively acrimonious, culminating in personal and philosophical attacks. The discourse encapsulates the core differences in their thought processes, reflecting Heidegger's fascination with the existential depth of experience and Wittgenstein's insistence on the primacy of facts and the utilitarian nature of language.

In a surprising turn of events, Wittgenstein proposes walking as a solution, an idea that eventually finds resonance with Heidegger, as it encapsulates a connection to both the self and the earth - elements core to both philosophers' understanding of being in the world.

The dialogue, thus, presents an engaging interplay of contrasting philosophical perspectives, using the mundane choice of transportation as a gateway into the vast and complex landscape of philosophical thought.

Heidegger: It seems we find ourselves at an impasse, Wittgenstein, regarding our choice of transportation. I'm suggesting we hail a taxi.

Wittgenstein: The cab, Heidegger? Why, that's so very antiquated. The Über, the model of our modern time, its principles reflect the atomisation and individualism of our society.

Heidegger: The taxi hails from a simpler time, it represents a connection with the authentic and the historical. Don’t you perceive the rootedness that underlies the taxi system? It’s a symbol of Being itself.

Wittgenstein: Your argument shows an infatuation with nostalgia, Heidegger, not a thoughtful reflection on the nature of the phenomenon. We don’t encounter authenticity by taking a taxi. The world does not reveal itself to us in such a simplistic manner.

Heidegger: And yet, in the taxi, one encounters the Other in the driver, there's a connection to a lived world that's palpable. In an Uber, one is essentially ordering a service, reducing the driver to a function. There's a danger of dehumanization.

Wittgenstein: Heidegger, you're committing the same fallacy as those who romanticize the past, the same mystification of the common! The taxi and the Uber are the same in essence. Both are services in the world that function in a manner similar to the myriad of other services we use daily.

Heidegger: I wouldn’t expect a logical positivist such as yourself to understand the nuanced relationship between Being and world. You take the world and strip it down to the bare facts. What's left is empty and void.

Wittgenstein: Well, that's rich coming from you, Heidegger! A man who distorts language into a labyrinthine rhetoric, a riddle to keep the masses entertained, but leads them nowhere! Your assertion of the cab’s superiority is another one of your obscurantist grand narratives. It’s pure mystification!

Heidegger: Your critique is as unyielding as it is sterile, Wittgenstein! With your fixation on the factual, you’re missing the forest for the trees. A single tree does not make a forest, and a single fact does not make a world.

Wittgenstein: It's better than getting lost in your forest of jargon, Heidegger! It's a wonder how one can even make sense of your pretentious obscurantism!

Heidegger: Wittgenstein, I wonder how anyone can find depth in your simplified world of factoids. Your philosophy is just as empty as the Uber you advocate for.

Wittgenstein: It's not about the vehicle, Heidegger, it's about the journey. Isn’t the world and the people in it more important than the medium of transportation? The meaning isn't in the Uber or the taxi; it's in the interaction, the dialogue.

Heidegger: Well, you’re right about one thing Wittgenstein, it is about the journey, but the medium is not irrelevant. Each journey, each mode of transportation, influences the world and our Being-in-the-world.

Wittgenstein: Then perhaps, Heidegger, the wisest choice would be to walk. By being grounded in our own movement, we might find a middle ground between our viewpoints, wouldn’t you agree?

Heidegger: An interesting proposition, Wittgenstein. Walking, a connection to earth and self, yet also symbolic of our individual journeys through the world... Yes, that might just be the most authentic mode of transportation after all.