Abstract
A not uncommon way to mark both the development of Heidegger’s thought and the distinction between the so-called “early” and “later” Heidegger is to focus on his philosophy of the subject. A frequently expressed view of Heidegger is that while Sein und Zeit offers a profound critique of the Cartesian subject, the existential analysis of Dasein still remains within the bounds of a traditional or “modern” view of the subject. This latent, modern view of the subject is said not only to be detectable within the language of “authenticity” and “resoluteness, “ but also to rise to an unfortunate climax in the Rektoratsrede of 1933. Heidegger’s subsequent “turn” (Kehre) is hence linked to a dramatic self-realization about the “subjectivist” nature of his early work and an effort to expunge this latent philosophy of the subject from his later thought. This particular reading of Heidegger, already present in the literature of the late 1940’s, became rather canonical, or at least, it became the passively understood framework from which to understand the development of Heidegger’s thought. Indeed, after William Richardson’s highly influential study of Heidegger, this reading not only became the way to grasp the distinction between what Richardson named “Heidegger I” and “Heidegger II, “ but as is implied by the title of his book—Martin Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought 1—phenomenology itself is identified with a subjectivist perspective.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
William Richardson, Through Phenomenology to Thought (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962).
See especially the sections on “Gemeingeist” in Edmund Husserl, Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität Texte aus dem Nachlass. Erster Teil (1905–1920). Zweiter Teil (1921–1928). Dritter Teil (1929–1935), hrsg. von Iso Kern, Hua XIII-XV (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973); see also Hua XXVII, especially 21–23 and 43–59.
Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1979), 384; Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and J. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 435.
SZ, 118ff.;BT, 154ff.
SZ, 384–385; BT, 436.
“Wir leben nicht nur nebeneinander sondern ineinander, ...” Ms. F I 24/76a. See as well, Hua XIV, 179, where Husserl suggests that in true community, “die Ichheit des einen ist nicht neben der des anderen, sondern lebt und wirkt in der anderen.”
Important research in this direction has been conducted by Rudolf Bernet (see for example, La vie du sujet:recherches sur l’interprétation de Husserl dans la phénoménolgie (Paris: P.U.F., 1994).
See Rudolf Bernet, “The Other in Myself, “ in Tradition and Renewal Philosophical Essays Commemorating the Centennial of Louvain ‘s Institute of Philosophy (Leuven, 1992), 61–79. 9.SZ, 130; 57, 168.
Bernet, “The Other in Myself, “ 75.
Martin Heidegger, Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität, Das Rektorat 1933/34 (Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann, 1983), 19; “The Self-Assertion of the German University and the Rectorate 1933/34: Facts and Thoughts.” Trans. Karsten Harries. The Review of Metaphysics 38 (March, 1985), 479–480.
OT, 10, 15; SA, 471, 475.
“Aber ich war damals allerdings auch der Überzeugung, dass durch selbstständige Mitarbeit der Geistigen viele wesentlichen Ansätze der “NS. Bewegung” vertieft und gewandelt könnten, um die Bewegung so in den Stand zu setzen, in ihrer Weise mitzuhelfen, die verwirrte Lage Europas und die Krisis des abendländischen Geistes zu überwinden.” Letter to the rectorate of Freiburg, November 4, 1945. Printed in the unpublished doctoral thesis of Karl A. Moehling, “Martin Heidegger and the Nazi Party: An Examination, “ (Diss., Northern Illinois University, 1972), 264–268. One is tempted to be sceptical of Heidegger’s concern for the health of the West: in his rectorial address, mention of the “West” is made only once; for the rest, the crisis seems to have been a peculiarly “German” affair.
SB, 10–11; SA, 471.
SB, 14; A4, 475.
Löwith, Mew Leben in Deutschland, 32ff.
“Schicksal des deutschen Volkes.” SB, 9, 10, 15, 16–17; SA, 470, 471, 475, 477.
SZ, 41–43; BT, 67–68.
SB, 11; SA, 472.
Nevertheless, as Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe points out, a principled opposition to anti-semitism did not prevent Heidegger from cooperating with a movement for which anti-semitism was a principle issue. See Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, “La fiction du politique, ” in Heidegger: Questions ouvertes, ed. J. Derrida and E. Levinas (Paris: Osiris, 1988), 190. This text is an extract of his full-length book, La fiction du politique (Paris: Christian Bourgois, 1988).
Of course, this is still Heidegger’s belief that the German people have a “special” mission as the heirs of Greek science; this leads leads Derrida to suggest that Heidegger’s thought displays a sort of “metaphysical racism.” Derrida, De l’esprit, 118–119; Of Spirit, 74.
The most evident similarity with the “formation” from below which marks Husserl’s use of the “I”-”We” analogy is that Heidegger too sees the need for a middle step along the way towards authentic community. For Husserl, this middle step is the community of philosophers; for Heidegger, the university. For a reform of the German university to take place, the German student-body must will it, decide it resolutely, determine the essence of the university as the place where science, the questioning of Being, will take place. And as the German university is the place where the “leaders and guardians of the fate of the German people are educated and disciplined” (SB, 10; SA, 471), it is the decision taken within the German university which lays the basis for the decision of the German nation.
On the one hand, the Führer, says Heidegger, does not determine the willing of the people, but is led by that willing (SB, 9; A4, 470.). On the other hand, the most damning statement from Heidegger’s involvement with National Socialism remains: “The Führer alone is the present and future German reality and its law.” Cf. Martin Heidegger, “Aufruf an die Deutschen Studenten” (3. Nov. 1933), printed in Martin Heidegger und das Dritte Reich, ed. B. Martin, (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989), 177.
The desire for the unity of the university is seen in Heidegger’s continuous attack on what he sees as the artificial division of the sciences (SB, 13, 15, 17; SA, 473, 474, 478); the subsequent desire for the unity of the German nation at large in the call for all the “services”—“Labour Service (Arbeitsdienst), Armed Service (Wehrdienst), Knowledge Service (Wissensdienst)— primordially coalesce and become one formative force)” (SB, 18; A4, 479).
SB, IS; SA, 419.
SB, 28–29; SA, 488–489.
SB, 18–19; SA, 479.
Martin Heidegger, Hölderlins Hymnen “Germanien” und “der Rhein”, ed. S. Ziegeler, Gesamtausgabe 39 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1989);
Hölderlins Hymne “der Ister”, ed. W. Biemel, Gesamtausgabe 53 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1984).
GA 39, 20ff.
GA 39, 57–58.
BT, 163; SZ, 126.
GA 53, 178.
GA 53, 41–42.
GA 53, 42.
GA 53, 178.
GA 53, 42–43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buckley, R.P. (1998). Stromdichtung and subjectivity in the later Heidegger. In: Zahavi, D. (eds) Self-Awareness, Temporality, and Alterity. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9078-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9078-5_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5031-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9078-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive