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

The steep-roofed, three-roomed retreat is traditional for this valley and only its height above the rest and its plainness mark it out. Adam Sharr's scholarly monograph, Heidegger's Hut (MIT Press, 2006), longed for evidence that the master instructed his craftsman to build the shack in a Heideggerian way in 1922, but found none. His young wife Elfride discovered the area on a skiing holiday and when her husband fell in love with it, he chose a plot and she had the hut built with money from her parents. The result tucks neatly into the hillside and, in the local manner, causes nature no offence. Heidegger got this traditional discernment of the peasant-artisan back into philosophy, not architecture. As towns began to build over green fields and cars to clog the streets of his native Messkirch, he asked if modern life wasn't concreting over truth, rendering it no longer accessible.

What a marriage kept this man going. Just as Nietzsche saw the querulous bourgeoisie beneath Wagner's gods, Wotan and Fricke, so one can see, with the help of a lifetime of Martin's letters to his wife, a story of high-mindedness and banality. He wrote Being and Time (1927) up here in spartan conditions. When it made his career, Elfride saw her moment. No sooner established in a chair in his dear Freiburg, her husband was offered the country's top job in his subject, in Berlin. When he refused it, Elfride invited Freiburg to pay for the electrification of the hut in gratitude, which they did, in 1931. Martin's serial infidelities notwithstanding, the Heideggers were married for 60 years. She couldn't anchor him sexually, but Elfride got her own back by spending a last night with his corpse. Sitting on last year's grass, remembering the icy professional photographs of their coupledom taken up here to mark his 75th birthday, I'm struck by how he kept the creativity he brought to philosophy, giving it a value close to a work of art, so distant from his life's companion. 

Board Three insists the hut remained spartan, and that only in 1962 did it acquire a little radio to keep Heidegger in touch with the Cuban missile crisis. This influential German soulkeeper, both of whose sons were Russian prisoners of war, was addled by the Russian threat both pre- and post-war. Like Hitler, Heidegger made good use of the Bolshevik threat, conflating it with America into a mechanistic devil totally opposed to the good German spirit. Like Adorno, his Jewish shadow in exile, he thought the devil of instrumentality was crowned by the Enlightenment. When he was already at the height of his first fame, many German philosophers, including his former teacher Edmund Husserl, concluded that Heidegger wasn't doing their subject any more, but something of his own. 

"Forests store/Streams tumble/Rocks endure/Rain descends./Thresholds wait/Springs gush/Winds dwell/Blessedness feels." Heidegger's occasional poems, which he rightly preferred to call "Moments of Thought", contain little distillations of his message, like the last two lines here on Board Three: "Winde wohnen/Segen sinnt: Winds dwell/ Blessedness feels." Heidegger passionately rejected cogitation in pursuit of truth, hence blessedness as an extra and superior sense. 

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