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

As I stand on this mountaintop, pressed to consider Nature and Truth and two hot wars and a cold one, Karl Popper's wartime damnation of German philosophy in The Open Society and Its Enemies comes to mind. Popper attacked Idealism from Plato to Hegel as being essentially undemocratic. Heidegger attacked that same tradition almost contemporaneously and concurred that what led to untruth was subjectivity, or the old German habit of inwardness. Against the German grain, he wanted to privilege the world outside. That Heidegger tried to relieve the German tradition of the burden of metaphysics and endow it with a new empiricism is a fact obscured by his oblique style. It's why the most interesting work being done on him today is in connection with the pragmatic Wittgenstein. 

The little poem displayed on Board Three expresses Heidegger's feeling, however, that a German empiricism could never go deep enough if it didn't supplement technical language with poetry. So, with language, one finds him on the way back to that inwardness he disowned. Utterances like "Wind Dwells" have reminded generations of Heideggerians of Rainer Maria Rilke. The comparison irritated Heidegger, for Rilke surely embodied the old inwardness. Exactly. 

The achievement then, and what the poet and philosopher shared, is that they occupied common ground in their love of things. As he sat in Todtnauberg, Heidegger enumerated all the things around him and through the window: "The stone on the path and the clod of ploughed earth, the jug...And the well and the cloud in the sky and the thistle in the field, the leaf in the autumn wind and the hawk over the wood...The hammer...The shoe, the axe and the clock." Any future metaphysics, wrote the English poet Gerard Manley Hopkins in 1871, must get away from Aristotle-Aquinas, and above all Hegel, and defer to the haecceity — the thisness — of things. Religious empiricism might name that aim. It's surely no coincidence that Hopkins and Heidegger 50 years later struggled with their faith and shared a love of the medieval mystic Duns Scotus, who rejected other-worldliness in favour of haecceity, a word he coined. 

Evidence of that spirit of religious thisness can be found in work of Heidegger's recommended on the next panels as having been written up here. The Contributions to Philosophy, 1938-9, are hard work but anyone can appreciate the meditations on place in The Experience of Thinking. These volumes, and another, Speeches, from the Collected Works, can be borrowed from the
local library while you're here on holiday. That's Germany for you. I always admire the seriousness when I meet it. Meanwhile, the tip to read Speeches quietly steers the reader enthusiastic for thisness back to the infamy of the pro-Nazi Rectoral Address of May 1933, and there's honesty in that. It means, I think, that to try to understand, and accept, Heidegger is a constant balancing act and a hovering mystery.

Great men came to visit him after the war in Todtnauberg, including the theologian Rudolf Bultmann, the novelist Ernst Jünger, the physicist Werner Heisenberg and the poet of the Holocaust Paul Celan. Heidegger couldn't say the right things directly to Celan either. With his ban from teaching for five years after the war, he became famous as his activity shifted from academic to guru. Since he hated academic life and despised the triviality of "life down there" at the university, he ought to have been less rattled but he had a nervous breakdown. Then, as a sui generis philosopher whose fame had spread abroad, from the late 1950s, he was happier again. 

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