Abstract
After fifteen years Robert Minder’s learned analysis of Heidegger’s lecture on Johann Peter Hebel remains by far the most persuasive effort to link Heidegger’s thought to Nazism.1 Minder does this through a deft exegesis of the style of Heidegger’s essay, which leaves no room for doubting that there are highly significant connections between the later Heidegger’s style and a certain conservative, Catholic-peasant ideology which could and in fact did easily become Nazified. Proceeding from the (dubious) premiss that Adorno’s philosophical analysis of the “Jargon of Authenticity” accurately exposes the philosophical shortcomings of Heidegger’s Seinsdenken, Minder considers the later Heidegger’s literary affiliations with the same end in view. Heidegger’s style goes through four phases. First, we have his early student years when his writing is aridly academic. In his second period he writes Sein und Zeit in a style that adapts Expressionism to philosophical prose. The third phase coincides with his overt support of the Hitler regime as rector of the University of Freiburg in 1933 and is, consequently, overtly Nazi. The final phase, Minder argues, represents a muted depoliticization of Nazi pseudo-Romantic obscurantism. This represents an extension of the thesis first advanced in Paul Hühnerfeld’s trenchant study In Sachen Heidegger.2
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
Robert Minder, “Heidegger und Hebel oder Die Sprache von Messkirch”, Dichter in der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt/Main, 1966), pp. 211–64.
Paul Hühnerfeld, In Sachen Heidegger (Hamburg, 1959), p. 85.
Martin Heidegger, Hebel der Hausfreund (Pfullingen, 1957), p. 26.
George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology (New York, 1964), passim.
For an historically accurate account of Hebel and his work see Uli Daester, Johann Peter Hebel in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Reinbeck, 1973).
Wilhelm Shäfer, cited by Minder, “Heidegger und Hebel”, p. 215.
Heidegger, “Der Feldweg”, Wort und Wahrheit 5 (1950), p. 267.
Heidegger, “Der Spruch des Anaximander”, Holzwege (Frankfurt/Main, 1950), pp. 296–343;
“Die Sprache im Gedicht”, Unterwegs zur Sprache (Pfullingen, 1959), pp. 35–82.
Personal communication from Norbert R. Wolff, professor of German, Würzburg University.
Interview with Martin Heidegger, “Nur ein Gott Kann uns Retten”, Der Spiegel 23 (1976).
Heidegger, Sein und Zeit (Tübingen, 1977), pp. 153–60; cf. “Zeit und Sein”, Zur Sache des Denkens (Tübingen, 1976), pp. 24–5.
George Steiner, Heidegger (London, 1978), pp. 112–21.Steiner’s views on this matter, i.e. his reluctance to pronounce upon Heidegger one way or another, deserve to be taken especially seriously on account of his vast knowledge of German lanugage and literature and his commitment to the notion that the Nazi experience utterly transformed German; see his Lanugage and Silence (New York, 1967).
Steiner, Heidegger, p. 113.
If I am not mistaken, this is the point of Heidegger, Hebel, pp. 24–7.
Anthony Kenny, Wittgenstein (Harmondsworth, 1973), pp. 219–32.
R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics (Oxford, 1940), p. 32.
This is emphasized by Lucien Goldmann in his Lukács et Heidegger (Paris, 1973), pp. 91–105.
Minder, “Heidegger und Hebel”, p. 231.
Robert A. Kann, A Study in Austrian Intellectual History (New York, 1960), pp. 92–3.
Abraham a Santa Clara, “Der alte Hafen scheppert”, Auswahl aus Abraham a Santa Clara, ed. Karl Bertsche (Bonn, 1911), pp. 3–4.
Abraham a Santa Clara “Hui and Pfui der Welt”, p. 479, cited in Kann, p. 84.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Vermischte Bemerkungen (Franfurt/Main, 1977), p. 53.
Eg. Wilhelm von Humboldt’s notion of an “innere Sprachform” in Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie, Werke (5 vols.; Stuttgart, 1963), III, p. 192.
Heidegger, Sein, pp. 66–76 et passim.
Heidegger, Sein, pp. 2–14.
Rudolf Carnap, “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”, Logical Positivism, ed. A. J. Ayer (Glencoe, III., 1959), p. 69.
Heidegger’s move in saying things like das Nichts nichtet is best understood by comparison with G. E. Moore’s anti-reductionist use of the term good in the sentence ‘the good is good’. Moore insisted that this is all one can say about the good but that the sentence cannot be a proposition (i.e. true or false). G. E. Moore Principia Ethica (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 1–17.
Hühnerfeld has emphasized this, In Sachen, p. 75ff.
Walter Sokel, The Writer in Extremis (Stanford, 1959), p. 3.
Walter Kaufman, Prologue, Martin Buber,I and Thou (New York, 1970), pp. 7–48, 110n. 6; cf. Discovering the Mind (3 vols.; New York, 1979–1981), II, p. 206 et passim.
Hühnerfeld, In Sachen, p. 115.
Heidegger, Sein, p. 38.
On Husserl see Peter Koestenbaum’s introductory essay to his edition of Husserl, The Paris Lectures (The Hague, 1970), pp. ix-lxxvii.
Heidegger, Sein, p. 161.
I have explored some of these similarities in a lecture on Wittgenstein and Heidegger at the University of Tel-Aviv in 1979.
Heidegger, Sein, pp. 175–80.
Heidegger, Sein, pp. 164–65.
Heidegger, Sein, pp. 153–60.
I have discussed this in “Wittgenstein: an Austrian Enigma”, Austrian Philosophy, ed. J. C. Nyíri (Munich, 1981), pp. 75–89.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1970), p. 103 et passim.
Heidegger, Nietzsche (2 vols.; Pfuilingen, 1961), I, pp. 253–38.
Kuhn, Structure, p. 13.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, II, p. 21ff.; cf. “Die Zeit des Weltbildes”, Holzwege, pp. 69–104. It is worth contrasting Heidegger’s view of the matter with Hitler’s: “Alle diese Verfallserscheinungen sind im letzten Grunde nur Folgen des Mangels einer bestimmten, gleichmässig annerkannten Weltanschauung sowie der daraus sich ergebenden allgemeinen Unsicherheit in der Beurteilung und der Stellungnahme zu den einzelnen grossen Fragen der Zeit”, Mein Kampf (Munich, 1938), p. 292.
Stern, Ernst Jünger (New Haven, 1953), p. 13–7 et passim.
Hühnerfeld writes that Heidegger’s students reported Heidegger complaining about the Nazis in 1936, In Sachen, p. 93.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, I, pp. 29–33, p. 650.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, I, p. 399.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, I, p. 367.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, I, p. 101ff.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, I, p. 185 et passim.
Heidegger, Nietzsche, II, p. 255.
Kuhn, Structure, p. 79.
Heidegger, “Zeit und Sein”, pp. 21–5; cf. Nietzsche, II, p. 489.
On Loyola see Roland Barthes, “L’arbre de la foi”, preface to Ignatius Loyola, Exercises spirituels (Paris, 1972), pp. 5–53.
Heidegger, Sein, p. 235.
See Andre Thébaut, “Edification”, Dictionnaire de spititualité, (Paris, 1937-), IV, pp. 287–93.
Kierkegaard, Hâte-toi, discours 2, par. 15.
Kierkegaard, Hâte-toi, I, p. 6.
Kierkegaard, Religiöse Reden, trans. Theodor Haecker (Leipzig, 1936), pp. 109–10.
On Eckhart and Heidegger see John Caputo, “Meister Eckhart and the Late Heidegger”, Journal of the History of Philosophy 12, (1974); 13 (1975) 61–80; cf. Caputo’s The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought (Athens, Ohio, 1978). I have benefited greatly from numerous conversations and discussions of Heidegger with Professor Caputo. I am also grateful to Professor Caputo for allowing me to read the typescript of his book. For an appreciation of Meister Eckhart’s contribution to German vernacular philosophical vocabulary from a very different perspective (but nonetheless enthusiastic for all that) see Fritz Mauthner, Wörterbuch der Philosophie (2nd. ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig, 1923–1924), III, pp. 371–79.
Marie Jaarus Kurrik, Georg Trakl (New York, 1974), p. 29.
Heidegger, Hebel, pp. 5–8.
Heidegger, Hebel, pp. 8–12.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 11.
Heidegger, Hebel, pp. 11–2.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 13. My emphasis.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 25.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 26.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 12.
Heidegger, Hebel, p. 19.
Goethe, cited by Heidegger, Hebel, p. 22.
Heidegger, Gelassenheit, p. 24.
This is clearest in the philosophical fable, Der Feldweg, see n. 7.
Hans Seigfried, “Martin Heidegger: A Recollection”, Man and World 3 (1970), pp. 3–4.
See n. 80.
On Haecker see Eugen Blessing, Theodor Haecker (Nürnberg, 1959); on Ebner see Theodor Steinbuchl, Der Umbruch des Denkens (Regensburg, 1936). I am indebted to Friedrich Lehne for information about Ebner as a model for Catholic socialists.
Theodor Haecker, “Betrachtungen über Vergil, Vater des Abendlandes”, Der Brenner, 17 (1932), p. 30.
John Boyer, Political Radicalism in Imperial Vienna (Chicago and London, 1981), p. 464.
Stern, Hitler, p. 20 et passim.
See Jean Ladrière, “Langage des spirituels”, Dictionnaire de spiritualité, p. 9, pp. 204–17.
See n. 48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janik, A. (1989). Style and Idea in the Later Heidegger: Rhetoric, Politics and Philosophy. In: Style, Politics and the Future of Philosophy. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 114. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2251-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2251-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7508-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2251-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive