You are here:   Dispatches > Germany: Heidegger - Being, Time and Place
 

I like him for the attention he pays to labour and work, subjects he passed on to Arendt and which, as craft, are busy resurfacing today. I dislike his anti-intellectualism. His formula for bringing together brains and brawn in an ideological crusade pinpoints exactly where the tramlines carrying Marxist-Leninism and Nazism to their destinations crossed over. Anti-intellectualism is also wretched as such. A better course for a thinker who despises thinking might be to give up, rather than pretend he is a craftsman in his workshop.

One goes back through one's own education, political and artistic, up here, with the soul of water running, gushing, spilling everywhere, 10cm of snow like wet sugar underfoot, icy air and the occasional convector blast of warm sunshine. I've come to Heidegger, who would have been 120 this year, warily and late, but I know I haven't wasted my time coming to Todtnauberg when, the Rundweg over, there's time enough to explore the church I so admired from the bus stop.

Built in 1967, "because the old one was too small for the burgeoning congregation", it seems to embrace just that spirit which the student of Heidegger's hut could not find in a lesser building. It has the steep roof of local style and an eye-grabbing clock tower in modern wrought iron. The placing of the two, in relation to the surrounding hills, and the rise of the main street, is perfect. Inside, the rounded space is lit through broad friezes of abstract stained glass in the pale green of grass, the grey-white of snow and mountains and the lightning-strike red of grace. The whole surface is crossed by tracks: ski-tracks, animal tracks, sled tracks, paths of the kind that so fascinated Heidegger he made them his dominant motif. To philosophise is to follow a path, even if finally it leads to a dead end. Lord, what beauty is in being here in St Jakobus, far more so than in nature outside. This is what human being, Heidegger's Dasein, can rise to.

I don't want to re-Christianise the philosopher who began as a Catholic theologian, only to put him back in his place. As Elfride wrote to their priest back in 1919, "My husband has lost his faith and I have failed to find mine." Not only is Heidegger, as a lapsed Catholic, more Duns Scotus than Aquinas, he was always more interested in a system of worship and an account of eternity, than he was a lover of Jesus. What destroyed the system for him was modern biology: Darwin at his broadest point of impact. The theme is taken up in Being and Time, that God didn't make the world, nor us. We are just thrown into being to make some sense of our passing occurrence in this place. We occur in it like the stone on the path and the thistle in the field, except that we are human beings, who have responses like anxiety and care and a sense of that truth that is so reluctant to show itself. Arendt called Heidegger the philosopher of our exposure to history, "ein Philosoph der Geschichtlichkeit". He taught that not only does the human individual die, but whole human worlds die down and die off too. How can that be bearable? 

Not surprisingly, for himself, he chose to dwell in a world, up here, that has changed very slowly since his day.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
J. Truth
July 11th, 2011
1:07 PM
The analogy with Oppenheimer's physics is false because physics does not provide a basis for ethics whereas a philosophy either should show the basis of ethics or at least show why there can be no basis of ethics. Heidegger was not a nihilist and his ontology has ethical implications. To put it as simply as I can: Jews are. That should have been enough to warrant efforts to protect them from Hitler. Its obvious. And the fact that it is obvious makes it something important to study. Why did he miss the obvious? Why did he feel no sympathy? No empathy? It is ironic because the Jewish traditions are so strong on the necessity of justice. Where was Heidegger on that? You don't need to love. Just be fair. Even remotely fair. The gulf between the conditions required for a good thinker, or a good artist and a those required for a good man is indeed disturbing and instructive for any that aspire to the latter. Heidegger's actions are forgetful of being based on his own ontology. He was guilty of treason. He betrayed the Jews who were deserving of his effort to protect them not because they were Jewish but precisely because they were Dasein. Jews are human sentients. That is all he needed to know. He should have derived the rest. Why didn't he? Therein lies a question that must be asked. If it was just a personal failing that is no problem. If not then there is a danger in there somewhere. I suspect there is something blinding in his way of thinking. Some seduction he submitted to in his ontology that blinded him to the humanity around him. Historicity grossly misinterpreted. In the end I think that Heidegger's actions were nihilistic and not based on what he understood ontologically. But I cannot escape the conclusion that that is incorrect because it was such and obvious and flagrant mistake. The blood instinct can blind one to the true fellowship of being with. The question is why and how?

Question
December 21st, 2010
5:12 AM
Does one question the validity of Oppenheimer's physics because it was employed to create the atom bomb? Should one?

Charles Lutsky
October 16th, 2009
9:10 PM
Heidegger was in no way an anti-intellectual. He was, rigtly so, anti-intellectualism. Heidegger himself was an intellectual interested in poetry philosophy and history, especially ontological history. His quarrel with intellectualism was that he rejected the idea that the mind is the arbitrator of all knowledge. Heidegger believed we come to know the world through awareness of our being-in-the world. It is as much experiential as it is intellectual. He was not morbid about death. His interest in death was to cause us to focus on our limited time, to accept death and to turn our attention to authentic existence which is a heightened awareness that our actual life is all that we have. He was opposed to ideas and values which attempt to ignore that the end will come. Somehow wealth, fame, youth, and beauty are all ways that we can use to to add to our unspoken suspicion that we are immortal.

Wannabe Amazonian
October 4th, 2009
3:10 AM
Martin Heidegger was the son of Roman Catholic peasants. He studied for the Catholic priesthood for 2-3 years, but was asked to leave. We still do not know why. He lost his faith but remained curiously Catholic in his habits of mind. He is quite popular in Catholic universities in Spain and Latin America. I simply do not understand the Heidegger cult. Like many German language philosophers, Heidegger was a pompous bad writer. Heidegger had the common man's fascination with strength, power, and authority. He had the traditional European peasant suspicion of economic and technological change. Heidegger disliked the industrial revolution, but was unwilling to do anything to translate that dislike into a political or social programme, much less an effective one. So he scribbled oblique thoughts. I have time for German science and math. For German scholarly attention to detail. For German music, especially Brahms. For German thinkers like Lichtenberg and Ernst Cassirer. For German polymaths like Goethe. But I do not have time for pompous obscurantists like Heidegger, whose gut instincts were authoritarian. For a man who refused to see or acknowledge that mass murder is the central immoral fact of our time.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
More Dispatches
Popular Standpoint topics