I don't know if Dick was influenced by Heidegger (who is quite an hard philosopher to understand at the best of times), but I can say that he was influenced by the following philosophers, sometimes refered to via their work, sometimes by name:
Heraclitus
Plato (and probably Aristotle)
Bishop George Berkeley et al (eg. Locke, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza)
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Medieval Scholastic philosophers (?)
Existential philosophers (?)
The key figures there, at least in terms of the exegesis, are Berkeley and Heraclitus.
However, I'm not sure that he really he ever read much C19th or C20th century philosophy...
On the subject of time, re: comment 3 in the exegesis, there are a few different ways to intepret the nature of time.
On the one hand, time can be the psychological observation of change from the point of view of an individual. ie. Time consists of things like now, later, yesterday - words used to describe one's relationship or place within a (spatial) causal chain of events. So space is objective and independent from the observer, while the passing of time is based on the observer's observations of their movements and interactions with that space. In other words, I can say that time has passed since I have moved from space A to space B in one movement (or causal chain).
On the other hand, time could be a real element of the world exsting outside of the observer, a dimension through which we travel. ie. Time consists of things like 1947, this monday, July 2003 - words used to describe places on an objective timeline, through which everyone is travelling. So each individual measures their movements through space against the objective timeline. In other words, I can say that I have moved from space A to space B because I was in A at time X and B at time Y.
Does this make sense so far?
In philosophy there is a general convention where one of these timelines is called Timeline A and one is called Timeline B, but I'm fucked if I can remember which way round it goes.
On a third hand, time could be a combination of both of the above ideas.
On a fourth hand (assuming a second person's worth of hands), time could be something different entirely. For example, time could be something to do with one's movements across possibilities, or possible worlds, rather than movements through the spatial dimensions in this world. Or time could be a property of God's observation of the world (assuming a Berkeley-esque god), a god-dependent dimension that somehow defines our relationships with each other (in a Berkeley-esque world consisting of ideas rather than matter)...
All of which reminds me of Donnie Darko. In that film [SPOILER ALERT!], Donnie and friends are apparently moving through a seperate timeline to the main timeline- God's timeline in fact. In the exegesis, time ceases at some point and only continues when God returns. In other words, in the exegesis the real timeline is God's timeline, and when God's focus is not on the world the timeline is less real.
Can any of my ramblings be assembled into some sort of sense?
ii. |
