Heidegger, the homesick philosopher | Hacker News Reader

Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

newstatesman.com

65 pointsdeepbow44 comments

> The book was a refutation of the distinction between mind and body, and all the fallacies that follow. “I think, therefore I am” was, in Heidegger’s reckoning, a “naive supposition”, an anthropocentric conceit that went all the way back to Plato. Humans cannot be imagined either outside or prior to the world into which they are “thrown” – a bed of land, language, tradition, history and more. Heidegger believed that only once this embeddedness, this “Being-there” (Dasein) in the world, is recognised can it be restored to its fullest, most authentic form, and the “forgetfulness of Being”, “the homelessness of man” and “the Fallenness of the world” overcome.

I actually don't see that "cogito ergo sum" and Heidegger's "thrown-ness" are so contradictory. Descarte wanted to find a claim irrefutable by logic on which to found his subsequent thought. And he did. The fact he went on from there to separate mind and body in a way that Heidegger's thrownn-ness doesn't require doesn't mean the ideas aren't compatible.

The problem with Descarte's thought is not the first but second therefore: I think therefore I am therefore my mind is separate from my body.

Maybe the article is wrong? The two concepts address two entirely different issues and I don't see how the book could be a refutation with that description.

No, read the parent's (inesprimibile) comment for an explanation.

No, Heidegger explicitly attempts to refute and attack Descartes's supposition "cogito ergo sum" (the first therefore). And one can read all of Heidegger's early philosophy as an attempt to undo the errors started by Descartes: Heidegger faults Descartes with stymieing all of modern philosophy with a false first presupposition.

Heidegger's fault with Descartes lies in the very first two words: "I think." Heidegger does not believe that the "I" (Dasein/Being) is the thing that thinks (directly at least). In Descartes' world, humans are "res cogitans" ("thinking machines"): the "I" is that which thinks. For Descartes, there is some thing that is doing the thinking. In Heidegger's world, there is not some mysterious being that thinks, but rather the "I" is the experiencing/thinking itself (the "thrown-openness"). This is why Heidegger always uses verbs/gerunds to describe Being.

For Heidegger, the simple statement "I think" cannot possibly be true because there is no "I" behind the thinking. For Heidegger, the analog basic first-claim would instead simply be: "there is thinking" (the "ego"/"I" as we think about it is the "thinking" itself for Heidegger).

I agree. That is why Heidegger says that dasein, which roughly speaking means human being, is being-in-the-world, rather than a metaphysical substance outside the world that posits ideas about the material world.

The people who think Heidegger's philosophy is compatible with the Dartesian ego are reinterpreting his concepts to fit their own ways of thinking.

Eh, there's a lot of issues with the cogito, in that the statement Descarte arrives at is nowhere near as fundamental as he seems to think it is. It presumes an "I", subject of language, capable of evaluating its own thought, a system of language, etc, and presumes a mode of being, but then the being comes after the identification of the being itself, and so on...

It's all so much more confused than most folks, including Descarte, think it is.

He does identify something worth naming, but gets the cause and effect all mixed up. It'd be more sensible to say that I am, therefore I have the possibility of thought, and the possibility of using thought to identify my own being.

Thought being a material process which occurs in-and-of the world.

>It'd be more sensible to say that I am, therefore I have the possibility of thought, and the possibility of using thought to identify my own being.

Would it be? You're already positing that "I am" which there isn't a reason to believe if you were deceived about everything your senses tell you. At best, to start with "I am" simply re-raises the common objection to the cogito which is that Descartes assumes the "I" to begin with. It doesn't get you out of that bind.

Nevertheless, there are contemporary defenses of the cogito, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41501714?seq=1

>I think therefore I am therefore my mind is separate from my body.

That wasn't the inference (at that stage) of the process. He contends that he can imagine himself without a body, but firstly even if his senses deceived him he could still be sure that he exists because he thinks. This isn't such a huge leap, considering, for instance, people with phantom limb syndrome or people delusional about how their body really is.

Once discredited by his association with Nazism, Martin Heidegger is enjoying a posthumous revival. So what is it about his ideas that resonate with so many?

It seems like the situation is exactly the opposite. Heidegger was considered a leading throughout the 20th century and it is only in the last few years that the intensity of his NAZI affiliations has become evident (as well as the degree to which he mix philosophy and politics), leaving his philosophy much more suspect.

Are you suggesting that concepts like Dasein's thrown-ness into the world, the readiness-to-hand of tools, and other Heideggerian ideas, which have nothing to do with Nazism, should now be subject to suspicion on account of their originator's political affiliations?

I don't know if the OP suggested that Heidegger's philosophy should now be suspect, but rather claimed that his philosophy in the eyes of academia and the public has garnered more scrutiny simply because of his ties.

If some great painting was found to have been created by a Nazi, would the merit of the art be suspect in the eyes of art historians and the public? I wouldn't think so, but of course it's a different medium entirely.

> his philosophy in the eyes of academia and the public has garnered more scrutiny simply because of his ties

I think this probably is indeed the case. Although I would argue the value of an idea should be entirely detached from who had it, and be a function only of its usefulness, beauty and other significant attributes.

Of course if a Nazi has an idea we might then argue it becomes less beautiful because of that.

I would concur in your take on the argument. I think it's important, to promote rational and productive discourse, to push back on those that would have us believe that ideas are in essence, "guilty by association", based on the reputation or history of those who formulate said ideas.

Instead, the ideas, theories, philosophies, etc. should be confronted directly on their own merit or lack thereof. I don't think someone, in good faith, could claim that the ideas of liberty and freedom proposed by many of architects of the constitution of the United States are lessened simply because some of these people were slave owners. That's not to say that we can't look back now and agree that their practice of slavery was morally wrong, but to pillory their positive contributions to the world simply because of this seems quite nefarious.

Comparing philosophers with constitution writers is a bit difficult. Philosophizing and nation building are quite different from one another.

But, basically, the question we should ask:

"is there a direct connection between Heidegger's philosophical prescriptions and his fascism?"

If so, that suggests a pretty serious problem with his prescriptions -- that, in certain milieu -- his ideas comfortably co-exist with or perhaps even feed/justify a fascist mindset.

IMO that line was always kind of obvious, but in any case, Heidegger drew it directly for us in his Black Notebooks.

Especially in Heidegger's case -- because of the very broad nature of the prescriptions that follow from his work -- I think that's quite different from mere "guilt by association".

People still drive Volkswagens.

Volkswagens aren't metaphysical ideals with potentially negative ethical and political implications.

> and other Heideggerian ideas, which have nothing to do with Nazism

That's begging the question.

We want to examine his writings to figure out a) how important is the biographical question to his work and b) how bad were the Nazis and why? Maybe thinking in terms of "Dasein" leads inevitably to death camps. Maybe not. But you can't just assume there's no connection (or that there is one). You have to argue it out.

I think the claim that Dasein has to do with Nazism would need to be demonstrated. I think for any idea it is reasonable to assume it doesn't have anything to do with Nazism until demonstrated otherwise. Dasein's throwness, so far as I can see, doesn't have anything to do with Nazism.

Of course there is always the possibility for any idea that it leads to death camps. But it is rather hard to exhaustively explore the consequences of anything.

It could well be, however, that having an affilation with Nazism increases the likelihood that your ideas lead to death camps. Although even that ought to be deomnstrated rather than assumed.

For an idea in general, sure. But Heidegger literally joined the Nazi party and never repented publicly. So there is a burden of proof on the ideas he specifically created to show that his Nazism was unrelated and accidental to the idea.

Yes, this is exactly what has happened in the recent years, with the publishing of his black notebooks. I wonder how they could completely reverse the situation?!

It hasn’t been just the last few years. Heidegger’s Nazism became an issue already in the 1960s, when other intellectuals like Paul Celan struggled to reconcile his philosophical insights with his actions during the Hitler regime.

Marcuse was corresponding with him about it in 1947.

https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/40spubs/47MarcuseHeideg...

Heidegger's response looks rather weak to me, but note that Marcuse also didn't get his point about the treatment of East Germans by 'one of the Allies':

Not too long ago, I saw an exhibition on the 'Wolfskinder'[1], and what happened there looked pretty genocidal to me (though of course it wasn't the same as the meticulously planned 'Endlösung').

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_children

But things changed completely when the 'Black Notebooks' were published a few years ago [1]. They showed antisemitism to be a much deeper part of his thought, and it's much harder to argue that he just paid lip service to Nazism. He explicitly asked for them to be published last of all his writings [2], perhaps because he knew how controversial they were.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/13/martin-heidegg...

[2] http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/martin-heideggers-black-n...

yeah this article is not really jacked in to mainstream continental philosophy attitudes on heidegger after the publication of the “Black Notebooks”, where heidegger is an unabashed antisemite

That is incorrect unless by "last few years" you mean last 25-30. When I was studying Philosophy in the early 90's we read Heidegger and the professor started that section with a discussion on whether we could separate the philosophy from the politics.

I did not study philosophy but I'd think that you can't separate it.

Philosophy does not happen detached from the real world, does it? It's something that is influenced by the world and the things happening around you, so how could you separate it?

What's your opinion on that? Or your professors?

>It seems like the situation is exactly the opposite. Heidegger was considered a leading throughout the 20th century and it is only in the last few years that the intensity of his NAZI affiliations has become evident (as well as the degree to which he mix philosophy and politics), leaving his philosophy much more suspect.

Nope. His Nazi affiliations were very well known before, during, and after the war, and very widely talked and written about.

He was still one of the most celebrated thinkers in the post-war Europe, including by intellectuals of jewish ethnicity (intellectuals of course tend to know better how to draw a distinction between the person and their work, they're not little children).

And most of those celebrating him, had also touched upon the issue of nazi affiliations, so it's not like they celebrated him hiding those...

The so-called "black notebooks" didn't reveal anything unknown about his collaboration or thoughts, they just got published in much more touchy-feely era, with far less philosophers that had actually lived through those eras alive, and so the scandal was mostly a media one...

Heidegger perpetrated nonsense like "Das Nichts selbst nichtet" (The Nothing itself nihilates) [1], which positivists and empiricists rightly disdained. Obviously I am firmly in the analytic camp. If you like a bit of mysticism in your philosophy the later Wittgenstein is your man, especially his thoughts on language games, intersubjectivity and forms of life. A far more incisive set of philosophical tools for understanding notions of community and place than Heidegger's Blut und Boden bluster. IMHO of course!

[1] https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher...

>Obviously I am firmly in the analytic camp

Obviously. But it's not the only camp, nor it's some settled question. It's just the most popular in anglosaxon countries...

Heidegger's mysticism has been critic from a number of angles over the years. Theador Adorno's The Jargon Of Authenticity attacked him from a Marxist and so "continental" perspective.

It's notable that Heidegger isn't simply "continental" but specifically taken to be within the "existentialist" branch of philosophy and thus he's been critiqued (and taken up) by a variety of other perspectives.

Does Heidegger has had an added value on the world? He is very known which does not say anything about if he is a bullshit artist or a real truth seeker.

Could anybody explain one of it's new ideas? Did he just improved existing ideas?

I believe he is a bullshit artist but I would love to be refuted.

>And yet, Heidegger still stands as one of the commanding figures of 20th-century philosophy. His heirs include Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir and Jacques Derrida. His denial of mind-body dualism – his belief that we are rooted beings, inextricable from time and place – continues to influence fields as diverse as architecture, ecology and art history. Readers are left to discern whether the essence of his ideas leads inexorably to fascistic thinking or whether, in that aged refrain, the life can be separated from the work, so that we are free to forage as we please.

There's a third option, that didn't seem to pass through the writer's mind: that what they call "fascistic thinking" is a constellation of things, many of which were invoked in the past without negative consequences, and most would still find totally find, were they not today tarnished by association with a mass murdering regime...

The fascists also pushed major welfare reforms for example, and nobody today (hopefully) considers welfare something fascist in the bad sense...

The same can be said for all kinds of philosophical ideas (including of Heidegger). Just because they were themselves adopted by Nazis doesn't mean adopting them brings upon a Nazi regime, antisemitism, or mass murder...

For more on Heidegger and any other philosopher, I highly recommend the podcast "Philosophize This", it's helped me understand philosophy better than anything else.

Even though Heidegger was a nazi, he had a close relationship with Hannah Arendt, who was a Jewish political philosopher. Weird to conceive of holding nazi ideology in your head whilst dating Arendt.

Slightly tangential, but Hannah Arendt, in addition to being a political philosopher, wrote a fairly thought-provoking tome called 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'. Worth a read if one is interested in such things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

I'm not completely well-versed in Heidegger, but is it possible that he did not hold his Nazi beliefs so close to his heart that true love (corny, I know) could not usurp those feelings? I would not suggest that a man such as Heidegger would not be forthcoming in his beliefs, but I do think it's possible that him (and others throughout history) adopted political beliefs partially out of convenience. Sometimes, it's difficult to tell the lengths to which someone holds their convictions.

Although not a technical book, 'At the Existentialist Cafe' goes quite deeply into Heidegger's relationship with Arendt and Husserl and his time as a member of the Nazi party. It's quite damning if it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Existentialist_Cafe

Yeah I’ve read about half of origins of totalitarianism. Really unique book. One interesting thing I read is how she shows that colonialism from the dominating powers was quite often rooted in capitalist goals. And so she shows how underpinning totalitarianism and powers spreading over other countries was the result of greed by those in power. Makes sense, but I never think of how capitalism could lead to that.

Even weirder, before their love letters were published, Richard Rorty wrote a kind of hypothetical apology for Heidegger where he says "Well, if his life had been different and his lover were Jewish, maybe he could have had the same philosophy but not been a literal Nazi"—except he totally did have a Jewish lover and a Jewish mentor professor and still, Nazi.

Arendt actually met Heidegger prior to the rise of the Nazi party. That said, Arendt continued corresponding with Heidegger long after he officially joined the Nazi party. It was definitely a weird, problematic relationship.

What's worse imo is Heidegger's treatment of Edmund Husserl. I don't think it would be a stretch to say Heidegger threw Husserl under a bus when the Nazis came to power.

Arendt later recalled Heidegger as someone who "fell into his own trap." AFAIK, Heidegger was not an ardent Nazi, who joined the party anyways for practical purposes. As Sarah Bakewell, author of "At the Existentialist Cafe",[1] would characterize him as "lacking personality." He wanted to reform education, but failed to gain enough political influence within the party to do so. Even after WW2, he never issued an official comment on his affiliation with Nazism.

[1] Recommended read. Touches on interactions among existentialist thinkers like Karl Jaspers, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sarte, Edmund Hurssel.

>>>At the time of writing, “Martin Heidegger” is one of only 174 English Wikipedia pages –out of a total 29 million – officially flagged as “incomprehensible” by the site.

If nobody can understand him, he's not worth caring about.

He's following the German philsophical tradition of verbosity for its sake. But there is a small kernal of ideas that can be distilled from his work that academics generally agree are there and original enough for the time to be worth consideration. Interpretations vary wildly, of course, but that has almost as much to do with academia as it does Heidegger.

If you want to get a handle on Heidegger, I recommend working through Being and Time while listening to Prof Hubert Dreyfus's UC Berkeley lecture series, 'Philosophy 185 - Heidegger'. I heard them on ITunes U long ago, but they are also available on archive.org [0].

Dreyfus wrote a critique of AI, "What Computers Can't Do" in the 70s, and talks a bit about a Heideggerian approach to AI in his lectures which may be of interest to a few people here.

[0] https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berk...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com