Understanding as Being: Heidegger and Mamardashvili

  • Mara Stafecka
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 103)


The paper deals with the concept of thinking that Heidegger and Mamardashvili promoted to encourage and sustain questioning of being by abstaining to use language forms that did not contain the voice of being. Heidegger and Mamardashvili lived in the 20th century separated by cultural, social and political divides of their time, entangled into ideological struggles in their countries, keeping loyalty and allegiance to their principles of authenticity in the turbid world of mass obsessions and rampage of totalitarian ideologies. They both were very sensitive to calcified forms of rationality that functioned in the modern society contributing to build-up of inauthenticity that both men diagnosed and tried to remedy.


Public Realm Ideological Struggle 20th Century Philosophy Elaborate Sensibility Totalitarian Ideology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barash, Jeffrey. “Martin Heidegger in the Perspective of the Twentieth Century: Reflections on the Heidegger Gesamtausgabe”, Journal of Modern History, 64, March 1992. pp. 52–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartky, L.S. “Originative Thinking in the Later Philosophy of Heidegger”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30, 3, 1970, pp. 368–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gadamer, Georg. “Heidegger and the Language of Metaphysics”, in Philosophical Hermeneutics, University of California Press, California 1977.Google Scholar
  4. Gadamer, Georg. Reason in the Age of Science, The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Gadamer, Georg. Truth and Method, Seabury, NY, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings, Harper, San Francisco, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time, Harper&Row, N.Y., Evanston, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. Hemling, Steven. “A Martyr to Happiness: Why Adorno Matters”, The Kanyon Review 28, 4, Fall 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Kelley, R. Donald. “Horizons of Intellectual History: Retrospect, Circumspect, Prospect”, Journal of History of Ideas, 48, 1. 1987, pp. 143–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kruglikov, Vitim. “Do not Become the Other”, in Congeniality of Thought, Moscow, Progress, 1994 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  11. Mamardashvili, Merab. Aesthetics of Thinking, Moscow, 2001 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  12. Neal, Aubrey. “The Promise and Practice of Deconstruction”, Canadian Journal of History, 30, 1995. pp. 49–76Google Scholar
  13. Padgett, Andrew. “Dasein and the Philosopher: Responsibility in Heidegger and Mamardashvili”, Facta Universitatis, Series: Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology, 6, 1, 2007. pp. 1–21Google Scholar
  14. Pezze, Barbara. “Heidegger on Gelassenheit”, Minerva, An Internet Journal of Philosophy 10, 2006. pp. 94–122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mara Stafecka

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations