Skip to main content

Science as instrumental reason: Heidegger, Habermas, Heisenberg

Abstract

In modern continental thought, natural science is widely portrayed as an exclusively instrumental mode of reason. The breadth of this consensus has partly preempted the question of how it came to persuade. The process of persuasion, as it played out in Germany, can be explored by reconstructing the intellectual exchanges among three twentieth-century theorists of science, Heidegger, Habermas, and Werner Heisenberg. Taking an iconic Heisenberg as a kind of limiting case of “the scientist,” Heidegger and Habermas each found themselves driven to place new constraints on their previously more capacious assessments of science, especially its capacity to reflect on its method. Tracing how that happened, through archival and historical contextualization and close readings of their texts, lets us make visible Heidegger and Habermas’s intellectual affinities and argumentative parallels, which derived not only from their shared grounding in earlier reactions against positivism, but also from confrontation with contemporary events. The latter included, for Heidegger, the rise of a technically powerful science exemplified by nuclear physics, and for Habermas, post-World War II controversies over science, technology, and their socially critical possibilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Helmholtz (1903, p. 180).

  2. 2.

    For Heisenberg on his own terms see Carson (2010a forthcoming).

  3. 3.

    Ott (1988, pp. 69–70, 73–74, 86; Sheehan 1988).

  4. 4.

    The essays on Heidegger in Kockelmans and Kisiel (1970) have not been bettered. See also Kockelmans (1985), Glazebrook (2000).

  5. 5.

    Heidegger (1978a). One picks up resonances here of Dilthey and, more proximately, Rickert and neo-Kantian concerns. Cf. Heidegger (1988); Kisiel (1973).

  6. 6.

    Standard introductions are Schnädelbach (1984), Kolakowski (1968).

  7. 7.

    Planck’s and Einstein’s positions were in fact in tension. Heidegger cites both Planck’s (1910) Columbia lectures, whose introduction reworks his famous challenge to Mach, and Einstein’s (1905) relativity paper, which, by contrast, draws on Machian inspirations. While the treatment of Einstein is unexceptionable, Heidegger partly bypasses Planck’s point that mechanics (space–time description of masses in motion) must be put alongside electrodynamics in a broader dynamical scheme unified by thermodynamics. On Planck and Einstein see Heilbron (1986), Holton (1988).

  8. 8.

    The motif of a grand trajectory from Galileo to the present served everyone from Cassirer to Husserl to Koyré to Borkenau. See Carson (2010b forthcoming).

  9. 9.

    Heidegger (1978a, pp. 416–417).

  10. 10.

    Chevalley (1992).

  11. 11.

    For example, Heidegger (1973, 1978a, b), though with attention to the late-1930s notes that overlay the latter text; for the Freiburg inaugural lecture, Heidegger (1930).

  12. 12.

    Cassidy (1992; Heelan 1965).

  13. 13.

    (For example Heisenberg 1931). Heisenberg is most famous for uncertainty, but in his thinking that notion was actually comparatively marginal.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., pp. 174–175.

  15. 15.

    (Carson 2003).

  16. 16.

    Heisenberg (1931, p. 182). Heisenberg’s youthful positivism has often confused commentators, as have his later Platonic and Aristotelian turns. If there is a common thread to this eclectic philosophy, it is attention to the self-limitation of objective science.

  17. 17.

    Chevalley (1992, p. 348), citing Pascual Jordan and Max Born.

  18. 18.

    Von Weizsäcker (1949, 1977).

  19. 19.

    For a diligent but unfocused attempt to work out the connection, assuming that Heisenberg was a Platonist and Heidegger simply right about science, see Hempel (1990). A more insightful, though entirely textually based, discussion is Pöggeler (1993).

  20. 20.

    Heidegger (1933; see Bambach 2003).

  21. 21.

    Heidegger (1962, p. 51).

  22. 22.

    Ibid., pp. 15, 139. The discussion of transcendental reflection follows on Kant, naturally, though Heidegger’s Besinnung is a more general mindfulness.

  23. 23.

    Heidegger (1998, §26), (1953, p. 148), (1962, §B.I.5, esp. pp. 71–72).

  24. 24.

    Heidegger (1989, p. 148).

  25. 25.

    “Völkisch” science—examples might be Nazi racial hygiene or “Aryan” physics—belonged to the same historic constellation, oriented to the “end effect” (Ergebnis). Heidegger (1954a, pp. 92, 95; 1989, pp. 142, 148).

  26. 26.

    Heidegger (1954a, p. 96).

  27. 27.

    Heidegger (1991).

  28. 28.

    Heidegger (1989, pp. 148, 155).

  29. 29.

    Heidegger (1950, p. 71).

  30. 30.

    Heidegger (1995, p. 8). On physics as paradigm see Heidegger (1991, p. 14, n. 2).

  31. 31.

    (For example Heisenberg 1934). On the “Aryan” physics attack on Heisenberg see Beyerchen (1977).

  32. 32.

    Heisenberg (1989b).

  33. 33.

    Heisenberg (1941), included in his lecture collection Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft from the 1942 edition onward.

  34. 34.

    Heisenberg to Held, S. Hirzel Verlag, 23 March 1948, Werner-Heisenberg-Archiv, München (henceforth WHM), Korrespondenz 1948.

  35. 35.

    Enacted in Heidegger (1991, pp. 11–12), and going back, for instance, to Heidegger (1962, p. 5; cf. 1989, p. 142).

  36. 36.

    Heisenberg (1947).

  37. 37.

    Heisenberg (1948, p. 7).

  38. 38.

    Heidegger (1954b, p. 164).

  39. 39.

    Heidegger (1994a, p. 27).

  40. 40.

    Tracing the process in its cultural setting, see Allen (2006).

  41. 41.

    Heidegger (1994a, p. 42); see also Heidegger (1994b).

  42. 42.

    Heidegger (1954c). The lecture anchored this first major postwar collection, published in 1954. The standard English translation in Heidegger (1977) dates the lecture to 1955, but this is wrong.

  43. 43.

    There was talk of a jointly edited journal, for instance; Heidegger commented to a potential coeditor that they needed to clarify “the relationship to what [Heisenberg’s] name represents.” Heidegger to Nebel, Pentecost 1949, quoted in Jünger and Nebel (2003, p. 783). On this network see Morat (2004).

  44. 44.

    Hattingberg to Heisenberg, 4 March 1950, WHM Korrespondenz 1950; Stroomann to Heisenberg, 9 May 1951, WHM Korrespondenz 1951 under Bühlerhöhe; Heisenberg to Eickemeyer, 28 August 1951, WHM DFR Heisenberg; Heidegger to Heisenberg, 2 September 1951, WHM Korrespondenz 1951; Stroomann to Heisenberg, 4 January 1952; Pahl to Heisenberg, 2 February 1952, WHM Korrespondenz 1952.

  45. 45.

    Beyler (2003); as background Rohkrämer (1999), Hård and Jamison (1998), Herf (1994).

  46. 46.

    Podewils to Heisenberg, 4 May 1953 (quotation); also Heidegger to Heisenberg, 18 March 1953 and 9 June 1953, WHM Korrespondenz 1953.

  47. 47.

    Heisenberg to Podewils, 2 May 1953, WHM Korrespondenz 1953. Afterwards Heisenberg would privately describe the venture as “particularly problematic”: Heisenberg to Scholz, 24 April 1954, WHM.

  48. 48.

    Heidegger (1954d).

  49. 49.

    Heisenberg to Podewils, 17 September 1953, WHM Korrespondenz 1953; Fritz Heidegger to Heisenberg, 25 September 1953, WHM New. In Heidegger (1954d) the emergent shift is visible on p. 61, including some comments manifestly added after the fact. Otherwise the piece largely recapitulates Heidegger’s earlier thinking in somewhat different terms.

  50. 50.

    Draft minutes of discussion, 4 August 1953, Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste, Archiv, Ordner I,A; Heidegger to Podewils, 18 July 1953, emphasis in the original, in Kunze (1989), T. 3. I am indebted to Frau Sylvia Langemann for helping me with this material. Heidegger delivered the piece in at least two other venues, but this version is the one he finally published.

  51. 51.

    Heidegger to Boss, 28 October 1953, excerpted in Heidegger (1987, p. 310); Heidegger to Heisenberg, 6 November 1953, WHM Korrespondenz 1953.

  52. 52.

    Heisenberg (1953, p. 47).

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Heidegger (1954c, pp. 26, 22–23). The latter paragraph borrowed from Heidegger (1994a, p. 27), but silently dropped the comparison to gas chambers and death camps, which now fit less well into the framework of Bestand as energy alone.

  55. 55.

    Heidegger (1954d, p. 61), paragraph added after Heidegger (1954c), foreshadowed in Heidegger (1994a, p. 42), but in as yet unclear form. In his copy of Heidegger (1994a) Heidegger noted at that point, “Atomphysik.”

  56. 56.

    Heidegger (1954c, p. 35, emphasis in the original).

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    The point is still elusive in Heidegger (1954c); later essays make it clearer. See Dreyfus (2002).

  59. 59.

    Heidegger (1954c, p. 41). On performance see Mehring (1992).

  60. 60.

    Minutes on “Kunst und Technik,” 27 March 1953, WHM Korrespondenz 1953 under Podewils.

  61. 61.

    Heidegger (1954d, p. 70).

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p. 61. The annotation is reproduced in the Gesamtausgabe edition (v. 7).

  63. 63.

    In addition, the tour of Aristotelian causality in Heidegger (1954c, pp. 15–20) may be a counter to Heisenberg’s simple-minded comments (Heisenberg 1952). Heidegger was provoked by the piece, as well as by his ongoing exchange with Heisenberg, out of which (he reported to a colleague) came the lecture’s first draft with its long excursus on causality: Heidegger (1954d, p. 51); Heidegger to Boss, 28 October 1953, in Heidegger (1987, p. 310). On the larger relevance of Heidegger’s early thinking on Aristotle see Feenberg (2005, ch. 2).

  64. 64.

    (For example Heidegger 1962, p. 73; Heidegger 1994a, pp. 43, 42). The promotion of “energy” to its uniquely central role, which it does not hold in 1949 in Heidegger (1994a), may owe something to Heisenberg (1949), referenced in Heidegger (1954d, p. 61).

  65. 65.

    Heidegger (1954d, p. 60). See also the supposed citation to Planck, “Wirklich ist, was sich messen läßt,” on p. 58, which would have made Planck turn over in his grave. What Planck had offered was a mildly ironic comment on the quantum, whose strangeness had given scientists pause: the quantum had to be accepted because it had been experimentally measured; and “was man messen kann, das existiert auch.” Planck (1949, p. 77).

  66. 66.

    Heidegger (1954d, pp. 60–61), finally placed front and center in Heidegger (1997, esp. p. 46). Note the language of Beherrschung in Heisenberg (1949, p. 97).

  67. 67.

    The closest Heidegger came to addressing it overtly is Heidegger (1997, p. 9). For a different assessment see Luhmann (2002).

  68. 68.

    Heidegger (1954e, p. 133). He would repeat the point over the next decade and a half, sometimes with specific dismissive reference to Heisenberg: e.g., Heidegger (1987, pp. 74, 161–162, 269). Heisenberg’s attempts to respond include Heisenberg (1959) and Heisenberg (1967, esp. pp. 34–35, 38–39).

  69. 69.

    The meaning of the Atomzeitalter is exposited in Heidegger (1997, pp. 45–47, 83). On the contemporary discourse of “mastering” technology see Seubold (1986, pp. 284–288).

  70. 70.

    Habermas (1953a). When reprinting his essays, Habermas often edited out allusions to concerns of the moment. I use the originals wherever there is a difference; in this case the reprinted version is identical.

  71. 71.

    Heidegger (1953, pp. 29, 152 [quotation]). See Janicaud (1992) and Kisiel (2001).

  72. 72.

    (For example Holub 1991, pp. 16–18; Matuštík 2003, pp. 12–17).

  73. 73.

    Habermas (1953a, emphasis added).

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Habermas (1992a, p. 147); Habermas (1981c, p. 515). For a thorough exposition see Moses (2007, ch. 5).

  76. 76.

    Habermas (1952).

  77. 77.

    On the influence of Habermas’s teacher Erich Rothacker (which Heidegger perceived in the 1953 review: Heidegger to Podewils, 19 August 1953, in Kunze (1989) see Dahms (1994, pp. 363–373).

  78. 78.

    Habermas (1952). See also the pathos-filled essay Habermas (1953b).

  79. 79.

    Habermas (1981c, 1992b).

  80. 80.

    see Vogel (1996).

  81. 81.

    Habermas (1957, p. 273).

  82. 82.

    Ibid., p. 283. The citation is to Landgrebe (1952, pp. 91ff).

  83. 83.

    Habermass [sic] (1958); Habermas (1958); Habermas (1963a, p. 420), a reference omitted from the version in Habermas (1981b).

  84. 84.

    Habermas (1962a). When Habermas and Ralf Dahrendorf drafted a public appeal in the wake of the famous Spiegel Affair of fall 1962, a watershed in West German public political life, they included von Weizsäcker and Habermas in the elite circle of targeted signers. See Habermas to Heisenberg, 11 November 1962, and Heisenberg to Habermas, 15 November 1962, WHM; Carson (2010a forthcoming, ch. 11).

  85. 85.

    Habermas (1957, pp. 282, 284); Habermas (1963b, p. 162 [quotation]; the passage is omitted from the fourth expanded edition of 1971).

  86. 86.

    He would make a similar point in Habermas (1973a).

  87. 87.

    (For example Heisenberg 1967, p. 34). Values were what mattered in guiding science, yet “‘[d]iese Wertvorstellungen… können nicht aus der Wissenschaft selbst kommen; jedenfalls kommen sie einstweilen nicht daher.”

  88. 88.

    Habermas (1963a).

  89. 89.

    Habermas (1963b, pp. 162 vs. 176).

  90. 90.

    Schelsky (1961). In the background is Ellul (1954).

  91. 91.

    Habermas (1964a). Most essays from this decade are translated in Habermas (1970), (1971), (1973b), or Adey and Frisby (1976).

  92. 92.

    Habermas (1964a, p. 143). There is also the problem that most of Habermas’s examples of advising in practice look more like RAND than like democratic discussion.

  93. 93.

    Habermas (1962b) and the contributions in Benseler (1969), including Albert (1964). For background see Dahms (1994) and Albrecht et al. (1999, ch. 7). Holub (1991, ch. 2), gives a reading sympathetic to Habermas.

  94. 94.

    Habermas (1963d, p. 182); with some overlaps, Habermas (1963c). Relevant for developing the claim is Habermas (1964b).

  95. 95.

    Habermas (1968a). Good analyses are Vogel (1996, ch. 5), and McCarthy (1978, ch. 1–2).

  96. 96.

    Habermas (1963b, p. 176). See also the analysis of origins in Dahms (1994).

  97. 97.

    Habermas (1965). The key passage on natural science (pp. 156–157) is adapted from Habermas (1964b, p. 244).

  98. 98.

    Habermas incorporated each thinker as he encountered him, even as the argument shifted as he went. Along with Habermas (1968a), the following examples are taken from Habermas (1963c, d, 1965, 1968b), along with Habermas (1973a), where, following Marcuse (1964, ch. 6), Heidegger is finally given his due on p. 396.

  99. 99.

    For his account of natural science in Habermas (1968a), Habermas in fact placed the turn-of-the-century pragmatist Charles S. Peirce at the center. Peirce supplied Habermas with three things at once. The first was a logic of scientific inquiry conceived as a life process within the framework of self-correcting technical action. The second, by contrast, was an anti-positivist attentiveness to the constitutive role of the community of investigators, tying reality into intersubjectivity and discourse. All the same, Peirce delivered, finally, a remnant objectivism (so Habermas saw it) that trapped the pragmatist, despite himself, in a monologic positivist quagmire. Thus the intimations of discursive intersubjectivity in science could be bypassed by Habermas in Peirce’s oeuvre, as they had been bypassed by Heidegger in Heisenberg’s.

  100. 100.

    Habermas (1968b, p. 55).

  101. 101.

    Habermas (1965, p. 165). Without a belief in objectivity, he pointed out, science had no defense against “Aryan” physics or Lysenkoist genetics.

  102. 102.

    Albert (1964, esp. pp. 201–203, 233); Lobkowicz (1974); Krüger (1974). For Habermas’s concession, Habermas (1973a, p. 394); for arguments about physics, pp. 392–393 (on the constitution of objects in quantum mechanics), pp. 374–376 (addressing certain transcendental-sounding propositions advanced by von Weizsäcker).

  103. 103.

    Habermas (1981d). That massive Weberian-Husserlian undertaking was written up in the Max Planck Institute for Research on the Conditions of Life in the Scientific-Technical World, which Habermas co-directed in the 1970s with Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. See Drieschner (1996) and von Weizsäcker (1981); for Heisenberg’s role, (Carson 2010a, ch. 10). Habermas’s group in the institute carried out a program of study on the planning of research and the “finalization of science”; cf. van den Daele et al. (1979). The project developed Habermas’s mid-1960s thinking on science policy but did not revisit his philosophical point.

  104. 104.

    Habermas’s call to bring research under critical, reflective control would have struck Heidegger as subjectivist and instrumental all over again.

References

  1. Adey, Glyn, and David Frisby (trans). 1976. The positivist dispute in German sociology. London: Heinemann.

  2. Albert, Hans. 1964. Der Mythos der totalen Vernunft: Dialektische Ansprüche im Lichte undialektischer Kritik. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 16: 225–256 (reprinted in Benseler 1969, 193–234. Page numbering as in Benseler 1969).

  3. Albrecht, Clemens, Günter C. Behrmann, Michael Bock, Harald Homann, and Friedrich H. Tenbruck. 1999. Die intellektuelle Gründung der Bundesrepublik: Eine Wirkungsgeschichte der Frankfurter Schule. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allen, Michael. 2006. How technology caused the Holocaust: Martin Heidegger, West German industrialists, and the death of being. In Lessons and legacies VII: The Holocaust in international perspective, ed. Dagmar Herzog, 285–302. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bambach, Charles. 2003. Heidegger’s roots: Nietzsche, National Socialism, and the Greeks. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benseler, Frank (ed.). 1969. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beyerchen, Alan D. 1977. Scientists under Hitler: politics and the physics community in the Third Reich. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beyler, Richard. 2003. The demon of technology, mass society, and atomic physics in West Germany, 1945–1957. History and technology 19: 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carson, Cathryn. 2003. Objectivity and the scientist: Heisenberg rethinks. Science in context 16: 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carson, Cathryn. 2010a. Heisenberg in the atomic age: Science and the public sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

  11. Carson, Cathryn. 2010b. Method, moment, and crisis in Weimar science. In Weimar thought: A critical history, ed. Peter E. Gordon and John P. McCormick. Princeton: Princeton University Press (forthcoming).

  12. Cassidy, David C. 1992. Uncertainty: the life and science of Werner Heisenberg. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chevalley, Catherine. 1992. Heidegger and the physical sciences. In Martin Heidegger: critical assessments, v. 4, ed. Christopher Macann, 342–364. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dahms, Hans-Joachim. 1994. Positivismusstreit: Die Auseinandersetzungen der Frankfurter Schule mit dem logischen Positivismus, dem amerikanischen Pragmatismus und dem kritischen Rationalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dews, Peter (ed.). 1992. Autonomy and solidarity. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 2002. Heidegger on gaining a free relation to technology. In Heidegger reexamined, ed. Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall, v. 3, Art, poetry, and technology, 163–174. New York: Routledge.

  17. Drieschner, Michael. 1996. Die Verantwortung der Wissenschaft—Ein Rückblick auf das Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung der Lebensbedingungen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Welt. In Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit, ed. Rudolf Seising and Tanja Fischer, 173–198. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Einstein, A. 1905. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellul, Jacques. 1954. La technique, ou l’enjeu du siècle. Paris: A. Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Feenberg, Andrew. 2005. Heidegger and Marcuse: the catastrophe and redemption of history. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Glazebrook, Trish. 2000. Heidegger’s philosophy of science. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Habermas, Jürgen. 1962a. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Habermas, Jürgen. 1963a. Theorie und Praxis: Sozialphilosophische Studien. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Habermas, Jürgen. 1968a. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Habermas, Jürgen. 1969. Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie”. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Habermas, Jürgen. 1973a. Postscript to Erkenntnis und Interesse, 2nd ed, 367–420. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981a. Philosophisch-politische Profile, 3rd ed. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981b. Kleine politische Schriften (I-IV). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981c. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Habermas, Jürgen. 1952. Im Lichte Heideggers. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 July (review of Landgrebe 1952).

  31. Habermas, Jürgen. 1953a. Zur Veröffentlichung von Vorlesungen aus dem Jahre 1935. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 July (reprinted in Habermas 1981a, 65–72. Martin Heidegger: On the publication of the lectures of 1935 (trans: William S. Lewis.). In Wolin (1991), 190–197).

  32. Habermas, Jürgen. 1953b. Der Moloch und die Künste: Gedanken zur Enlarvung der Legende von der technischen Zweckmäßigkeit. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 30 May.

  33. Habermas, Jürgen. 1957. Das chronische Leiden der Hochschulreform. Merkur 11: 265–284 (reprinted in Habermas 1981b, 13–40).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Habermas, Jürgen. 1958. Der verschleierte Schrecken: Bemerkung zu C. F. Weizsäckers “Mit der Bombe leben.” Frankfurter Hefte 13: 530–532 (reprinted in Arbeit, Erkenntnis, Fortschritt: Aufsätze 1954–1970, 92–96, Amsterdam: de Munter).

  35. Habermas, Jürgen. 1962b. Von der kritischen und konservativen Aufgaben der Soziologie. In Wissenschaft und Verantwortung: Universitätstage 1962, 157–171. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (reprinted in Habermas 1963e, 215–230).

  36. Habermas, Jürgen. 1963a. Vom sozialen Wandel akademischer Bildung. Merkur 17: 412–427 (reprinted in Habermas 1981b, 101–119).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Habermas, Jürgen. 1963b. Zwischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft: Marxismus als Kritik. In Habermas (1963d), 162–214 (Lecture of 1960).

  38. Habermas, Jürgen. 1963c. Dogmatismus, Vernunft und Entscheidung: Zu Theorie und Praxis in der verwissenschaftlichten Zivilisation. In Habermas (1963e), 231–257.

  39. Habermas, Jürgen. 1963d. Analytische Wissenschaftstheorie und Dialektik: Ein Nachtrag zur Kontroverse zwischen Popper und Adorno. In Zeugnisse: Theodor W. Adorno zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, 473–501. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt (reprinted in Benseler 1969, 155–191; page numbering as in Benseler 1969).

  40. Habermas, Jürgen. 1964a. Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In Humanität und politische Verantwortung, ed. Richard Reich, 54–73. Zurich: Eugen Rentsch (reprinted in Habermas 1969, 120–45; written in 1963; page numbering as in Habermas 1969).

  41. Habermas, Jürgen. 1964b. Gegen einen positivistisch halbierten Rationalismus. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 16: 635–659 (reprinted in Benseler 1969, 235–260; page numbering as in Benseler 1969).

  42. Habermas, Jürgen. 1965. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Merkur 19: 1139–1153 (reprinted in Habermas 1969, 146–168; page numbering as in Habermas 1969).

  43. Habermas, Jürgen. 1968b. Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie?” Merkur 22: 591–610, 682–693 (reprinted as Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie” in Habermas 1969, 48–103; page numbering as in Habermas 1969).

  44. Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. Toward a rational society (trans: Shapiro, Jeremy J.). Boston: Beacon Press.

  45. Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Knowledge and human interests (trans: Shapiro, Jeremy J.). Boston: Beacon Press.

  46. Habermas, Jürgen. 1973b. Theory and practice (trans: John Viertel.). Boston: Beacon Press.

  47. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981c. Interview mit Detlef Horster und Willem von Reijen (1979). In Habermas (1981b), 511–532.

  48. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992a. A philosophico-political profile. In Dews (1992), 147–185.

  49. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992b. Life-forms, morality, and the task of the philosopher. In Dews (1992), 187–210.

  50. Habermass [sic], Jürgen. 1958. Unruhe erste Bürgerpflicht. Diskus: Frankfurter Studentzeitung, June.

  51. Hård, Mikael, and Andrew Jamison (eds.). 1998. The intellectual appropriation of technology: Discourses on modernity, 1900–1939. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Heelan, Patrick A. 1965. Quantum mechanics and objectivity: A study of the physical philosophy of Werner Heisenberg. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Heidegger, Martin. 1933. Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität. Breslau: Wilh. Gottl. Korn.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Heidegger, Martin. 1953. Einführung in die Metaphysik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (Lectures of 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The question concerning technology and other essays (trans.: William Lovitt). New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Heidegger, Martin. 1978a. Der Zeitbegriff in der Geschichtswissenschaft. In Frühe Schriften, ed. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe, v. 1, 413–433. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Habilitation lecture of 1915).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Heidegger, Martin. 1995. Άγχιβασίη: Ein Gespräch selbstdritt auf einem Feldweg zwischen einem Forscher, einem Gelehrten und einem Weisen. In Feldweg-Gespräche (1944/45), vol. 77, ed. Ingrid Schüßler, 1–159. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Heidegger, Martin. 1930. Was ist Metaphysik? Bonn: Friedrich Cohen.

  59. Heidegger, Martin. 1950. Die Zeit des Weltbildes. In Holzwege, 69–104. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. The age of the world picture. In Heidegger (1977), 115–154. (Lecture of 1938).

  60. Heidegger, Martin. 1954a. Überwindung der Metaphysik. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, 71–99. Pfullingen: Neske. (Dates to 1936–1946).

  61. Heidegger, Martin. 1954b. Das Ding. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, 163–185. Pfullingen: Neske. (Lecture of 1950).

  62. Heidegger, Martin. 1954c. Die Frage nach der Technik. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, 13–44. Pfullingen: Neske. The question concerning technology. In Heidegger (1977), 3–35. (Lecture of 1953).

  63. Heidegger, Martin. 1954d. Wissenschaft und Besinnung. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, 45–70. Pfullingen: Neske. Science and reflection. In Heidegger (1977), 155–182. (Lecture of 1953).

  64. Heidegger, Martin. 1954e. Was heißt Denken? In Vorträge und Aufsätze, 129–143. Pfullingen: Neske. (Lecture of 1952).

  65. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Die Frage nach dem Ding: Zu Kants Lehre von den transzendentalen Grundsätzen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (Lectures of 1935–1936).

  66. Heidegger, Martin. 1973. Davoser Disputation zwischen Ernst Cassirer und Martin Heidegger. In Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, 4th ed., 246–268. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Davos debate of 1929).

  67. Heidegger, Martin. 1978b. Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit. In Wegmarken, 2nd ed., 201–236. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Dates to 1940, published 1942).

  68. Heidegger, Martin. 1987. Zollikoner Seminare: Protokolle—Gespräche—Briefe, ed. Medard Boss. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.

  69. Heidegger, Martin. 1988. Curriculum vitae 1915. In Sheehan (1988), 77–80.

  70. Heidegger, Martin. 1989. Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), ed. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Gesamtausgabe, v. 65. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Dates to 1936–38).

  71. Heidegger, Martin. 1991. Die Bedrohung der Wissenschaft. In Zur philosophischen Aktualität Heideggers, ed. Dietrich Papenfuss and Otto Pöggeler, v. 1, Philosophie und Politik, 5–27. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Lecture of 1937).

  72. Heidegger, Martin. 1994a. Das Ge-Stell. In Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge, ed. Petra Jäger, Gesamtausgabe, v. 79, 24–45. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Lecture of 1949).

  73. Heidegger, Martin. 1994b. Die Gefahr. In Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge, ed. Petra Jäger, Gesamtausgabe, v. 79, 46–67. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Lecture of 1949).

  74. Heidegger, Martin. 1997. Der Satz vom Grund, ed. Petra Jäger, Gesamtausgabe, v. 10. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Lectures of 1955–1956).

  75. Heidegger, Martin. 1998. Logik als die Frage nach dem Wesen der Sprache, ed. Günter Seubold, Gesamtausgabe, v. 38. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. (Lectures of 1934).

  76. Heilbron, J.L. 1986. The dilemmas of an upright man: Max Planck as spokesman for German science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Heisenberg, Werner. 1931. Kausalgesetz und Quantenmechanik. Erkenntnis 2: 172–182 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 29–39).

  78. Heisenberg, Werner. 1934. Wissenschaft und technischer Fortschritt. Stahl und Eisen 54 (1934): 749–752 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 92–95).

  79. Heisenberg, Werner. 1941. Die Goethe’sche und die Newton’sche Farbenlehre im Lichte der modernen Physik. Geist der Zeit 19: 261–275 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 146–160).

  80. Heisenberg, Werner. 1947. Wissenschaft als Mittel zur Verständigung unter den Völkern. Deutsche Beiträge 2: 164–147 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1989a, 384–394).

  81. Heisenberg, Werner. 1948. Die Sorge um die Naturwissenschaft. Göttinger Universitäts-Zeitung 3, no. 3: 7 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1989a, 65).

  82. Heisenberg, Werner. 1949. Die gegenwärtige Grundprobleme der Atomphysik. In Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft, 8th ed., 89–101. Zurich: S. Hirzel (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 341–353).

  83. Heisenberg, Werner. 1952. Atomphysik und Kausalgesetz. Merkur 6: 701–711 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 376–386).

  84. Heisenberg, Werner. 1953. Das Naturbild der modernen Physik. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch, 1953, 32–54 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 398–420. 1958. The physicist’s conception of nature (trans.: Arnold J. Pomerans)). New York: Harcourt, Brace.

  85. Heisenberg, Werner. 1959. Grundlegende Voraussetzungen in der Physik der Elementarteilchen. In Martin Heidegger zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Günther Neske, 291–297. Pfullingen: Neske (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984b, 249–255).

  86. Heisenberg, Werner. 1967. Das Naturbild Goethes und die technisch-naturwissenschaftliche Welt. In Goethe-Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch (Goethe), 1967, 27–42 (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984b, 394–409).

  87. Heisenberg, Werner. 1984a. Gesammelte Werke/Collected Works, ed. W. Blum, H.-P. Dürr, and H. Rechenberg, v. C.I. Munich: Piper.

  88. Heisenberg, Werner. 1984b. Gesammelte Werke/Collected Works, ed. W. Blum, H.-P. Dürr, and H. Rechenberg, v. C.II. Munich: Piper.

  89. Heisenberg, Werner. 1989a. Gesammelte Werke/Collected Works, ed. W. Blum, H.-P. Dürr, and H. Rechenberg, v. C.V. Munich: Piper.

  90. Heisenberg, Werner. 1989b. Ordnung der Wirklichkeit. Munich: Piper (reprinted in Heisenberg 1984a, 217–306; manuscript of 1942).

  91. Helmholtz, Hermann von. 1903. Ueber das Verhältniss der Naturwissenschaften zur Gesammtheit der Wissenschaft. In Vorträge und Reden, 5th ed., v. 1, 157–185. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg. (Lecture of 1862).

  92. Hempel, Hans-Peter. 1990. Natur und Geschichte: Der Jahrhundertdialog zwischen Heidegger und Heisenberg. Frankfurt: Anton Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Herf, Jeffrey. 1994. Belated pessimism: Technology and twentieth-century German conservative intellectuals. In Technology, pessimism, and postmodernism, ed. Yaron Ezrahi, Everett Mendelsohn, and Howard Segal, 115–136. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Holton, Gerald. 1988. Mach, Einstein, and the search for reality. In Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein, rev. ed., 237–277. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  95. Holub, Robert C. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the public sphere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Janicaud, Dominique. 1992. The purloined letter. In The Heidegger case: On philosophy and politics, ed. Tom Rockmore and Joseph Margolis, 348–363. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Jünger, Ernst, and Gerhard Nebel. 2003. Briefe 1938–1974, ed. Ulrich Fröschle and Michael Neumann. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

  98. Kisiel, Theodore. 1973. On the dimensions of a phenomenology of science in Husserl and the young Dr. Heidegger. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 4: 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kisiel, Theodore. 2001. Heidegger’s philosophical geopolitics in the Third Reich. In A companion to Heidegger’s Introduction to metaphysics, ed. Richard Polt, and Gregory Fried, 226–249. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Kockelmans, Joseph J. 1985. Heidegger and science. Lanham: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kockelmans, Joseph J., and Theodore J. Kisiel (eds.). 1970. Phenomenology and the natural sciences: Essays and translations. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Kolakowski, Leszek. 1968. The alienation of reason: A history of positivist thought. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Krüger, Lorenz. 1974. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis und gesellschaftlicher Interessen. In Materialien zu Habermas’ ‘Erkenntnis und Interesse’, ed. Winfried Dallmayr, 200–219. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Kunze, Stephan (ed.). 1989. Dokumentation: Heidegger und die Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste in München. Munich: Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Landgrebe, Ludwig. 1952. Philosophie der Gegenwart. Bonn: Athenäum.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Lobkowicz, Nikolaus. 1974. Interesse und Objektivität. In Materialien zu Habermas’ ‘Erkenntnis und Interesse’, ed. Winfried Dallmayr, 169–199. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Luhmann, Niklas. 2002. Modern sciences and phenomenology (trans.: Joseph O’Neil and Eliot Schreiber). In Theories of distinction: Redescribing the descriptions of modernity, ed. William Rasch, 33–60. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-dimensional man: The ideology of industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Matuštík, Martin Beck. 2003. Jürgen Habermas: A philosophical-political profile. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  110. McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Mehring, Reinhard. 1992. Heideggers Überlieferung: Eine dionysische Selbstinszenierung. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Morat, Daniel. 2004. Techniken der Verschwiegenheit: Esoterische Gesprächskommunikation nach 1945 bei Ernst und Friedrich Georg Jünger, Carl Schmitt und Martin Heidegger. In Sehnsucht nach Nähe: Interpersonale Kommunikation in Deutschland seit dem 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Moritz Föllmer, 157–174. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Moses, A.Dirk. 2007. German intellectuals and the Nazi past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  114. Ott, Hugo. 1988. Martin Heidegger: Unterwegs zu seiner Biographie. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Planck, Max. 1910. Acht Vorlesungen über theoretische Physik. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Planck, Max. 1949. Neue Bahnen der physikalischen Erkenntnis. In Vorträge und Erinnerungen, 5th ed., 69–80. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.

  117. Pöggeler, Otto. 1993. The hermeneutics of the technological world: The Heidegger-Heisenberg dispute (trans.: Michael Kane and Kristin Pfefferkorn-Forbath). International Journal of philosophical studies 1: 21–48.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Rohkrämer, Thomas. 1999. Eine andere Moderne? Zivilisationskritik, Natur und Technik in Deutschland 1880–1933. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Schelsky, Helmut. 1965. Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Düsseldorf: Eugen Diderichs.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Schelsky, Helmut. 1961. Der Mensch in der wissenschaftlichen Zivilisation, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, v. 96. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag (reprinted in Schelsky 1965, 439–480).

  121. Schnädelbach, Herbert. 1984. Philosophy in Germany, 1831–1933. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Seubold, Günter. 1986. Heideggers Analyse der neuzeitlichen Technik. Freiburg: Karl Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Sheehan, Thomas. 1988. Heideggers Lehrjahre. In The Collegium Phaenomenologicum: The first ten years, ed. John C. Sallis, Giuseppina Moneta, and Jacques Taminiaux, 77–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  124. van den Daele, Wolfgang, Wolfgang Krohn, and Peter Weingart (eds.). 1979. Geplante Forschung: Vergleichende Studien über den Einfluß politischer Programme auf die Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against nature: The concept of nature in critical theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich von. 1949. Beziehungen der theoretischen Physik zum Denken Heideggers. In Martin Heideggers Einfluss auf die Wissenschaften, 172–174. Bern: A. Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich von. 1977. Erinnerungen an Martin Heidegger. In Der Garten des Menschlichen, 404–412. Munich: Carl Hanser.

  128. Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich von. 1981. Erforschung der Lebensbedingungen. In Der bedrohte Friede: Politische Aufsätze 1945–1981, 449–485. Munich: Carl Hanser.

  129. Wolin, Richard (ed.). 1991. The Heidegger controversy: A critical reader. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank David Moshfegh, Michael Allen, Daniel Morat, Robert P. Crease, Paul Forman, Arne Hessenbruch, Ulrich Wengenroth, Peter Eli Gordon, Dirk Moses, Ralph Dumain, and Matthias Dörries for discussions, and reviewers of an earlier version of this essay for helpful suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathryn Carson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carson, C. Science as instrumental reason: Heidegger, Habermas, Heisenberg. Cont Philos Rev 42, 483–509 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-009-9124-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Martin Heidegger
  • Jürgen Habermas
  • Werner Heisenberg
  • Instrumental rationality
  • Science
  • Positivism