What do you think?
Rate this book
Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil
One of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers, without whom there would be no Jean-Paul Sartre, no Foucault, no Frankfurt School, Martin Heidegger was also a man of great failures and flaws, a Faustus who made a pact with the devil of his time, Adolph Hitler. The story of Heidegger's life and philosophy, a quintessentially German story in which good and evil, brilliance and blindness are inextricably entwined and the passions and disasters of a whole century come into play, is told in this brilliant biography.
496 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
86 people are currently reading
4563 people want to read
About the author
Rüdiger Safranski
36 books253 followersRüdiger Safranski is a German literary scholar and author. He has been Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at the Free University of Berlin since 2012.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
May 24, 2016
"Heidegger was born, he was a Nazi, he died."
John Haugeland’s ironic formulation is an allusion to a famous statement of Heidegger during a lecture on Aristotle: “Regarding the personality of a philosopher, our only interest is that he was born at a certain time, that he worked and that he died.” It is also a neat summary of what many people, including many philosophers, will tell you is everything that any decent person needs to know about Heidegger.
It of course raises the question which plagues any philosophical biography, that is: why does it exist? We want our philosophers to be role models and sages. They should have no lusts, no moral imperfections, no interests outside of philosophy, no personality. Their biographies should fit on a postage stamp. They should approach as closely as possible the ideal of a robot prophet or saint or a disembodied brain. There has been precisely one person in the history of philosophy who fulfilled these expectations. His name was Immanuel Kant. The rest were human.
We can skip the question of why you should be interested in Heidegger; anyone coming to a biography has already decided that they are. But what can a biography tell us that a philosopher’s work itself doesn’t, beside some trivial gossip? A good philosophical biography should tell us about the development of a thinker, provide an overview of his or her work and situate the work in its appropriate historical and philosophical context ("Philosophy is its own time grasped in thought" - Hegel). It should be penetrating but not prying, juicy but not salacious, respectful but not a hagiography, critical but not a hatchet job, readable but not breezy, encyclopaedic but not encyclopaedic. It should have a clear structure which is both chronological and thematic. It should entertain and enlighten.
This is an almost impossible task. And yet miraculously, Safranski has pulled it off. He does a much better job here than in his widely-praised Nietzsche biography which is frankly a bit crap.
It would be a disservice here to provide a précis of the précis; but this is a job well done. We see the proto Heidegger, the seminarian (less by choice than by financial circumstances that made it his only possible route to higher education). The move from theology to philosophy. The early Heidegger, the phenomenologist. From the shadow of Husserl to putting Husserl in the shade. Heidegger the careerist, Heidegger the Nazi. The quiet years. The late Heidegger, Heidegger ὁ σκοτεινός, the sage of Todtnauberg. Throughout, the grappling with the question of Being. Never fully answered, never fully questioned, never fully formulated, thought as perpetual motion. And who, who has read Heidegger would deny the power of his thinking? Not of his answers (he was never satisfied of his own) but of that sheer vital force of thinking. ¨Es denkt in mir¨ he sometimes said to his son, “Ich kann mich nicht dagegen wehren.¨ (Perhaps: Thought thinks in me, I can not resist it.) Or as Hannah Arendt put it, "Heidegger does not think about something, Heidegger thinks the thing." Thinking. Denken. Immer denken. The title of a late work: “Was heisst denken?” (What is called thinking?). A famous saying: "Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht." (Science does not think.) Another: "Man denkt nicht mehr, sondern beschäftigt sich mit 'Philosophie'". (One does not think any more, one busies oneself with 'philosophy').
Here is the kern of Heidegger's method, "Destruktion". "Die Philosophie ist keine Lehre, sondern eine Tätigkeit". [Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. - Wittgenstein.] Imagine an ancient sword hanging in the British museum, behind glass, under argon. Perfectly preserved. Imagine a professional swordsman (and where would you find such a thing nowadays outside of a circus? And where would you find a philosopher nowadays outside of academia?) breaking the glass and lifting the sword and taking the heft of it and swinging it. An outrageous blasphemy, perhaps. Looking ridiculous, perhaps. But isn't the act closer to the essence of the sword than any brass plaque?
Of course we can bin Heidegger, but we should be aware of what else we would be binning: it is little exaggeration to say that continental philosophy of the 20th Century consists of a series of footnotes to Heidegger. Without Heidegger, there is no Sartre, no Merleau-Ponty, no Derrida, no Gadamer, no Levinas, no Löwith, no Ricoeur to name but a few.
"But he was a Nazi!"
Before reading Safranski I was more willing to stand up for Heidegger in this regard. But it seems yes, he was. For a short period and at least until 1933/34, he truly believed that the Nationalist-Socialist party heralded a spiritual revival and revolution of the German people. In his brief spell as Rector, he energetically attempted the Nazification of the University of Freiburg. He muddied the waters of his philosophising and teaching. As one of his students at the time said, "I staggered out of the lecture hall in a daze. I didn’t know whether to study the pre-Socratics or join the SA." Heidegger realised too late (much, much too late) that the Nazi party was in fact the apotheosis of a corrupted, contorted technical-scientific ideology that he thought it would help overturn. The philosophers thought he was too much of a Nazi. The Nazis thought he was too much of a philosopher. Left nowhere, he resigned the rectorship and fled from politics to the comparative safety of his books and his Todtnauberg hut...
Can genius and moral idiocy coexist in the same body? Yes. Is all of Heidegger’s work now tainted by his association with the Nazi party? Yes. Is all of Heidegger’s work an expression of Nazi ideology? No. Is Heidegger’s thinking Nazi thinking? No. Is there much in it of great interest and value? Yes. Was Heidegger a bad man? Yes. Was Heidegger a great thinker? Yes.
Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers asked themselves the same questions in an exchange of letters.
A set of collected works (as yet incomplete) that will be over a hundred volumes, ranging over the entire history of philosophy. A Nachlass that is even bigger; we will probably never see it all. All that writing and practically nothing on ethics, practically nothing on politics? You could drive a bus through Heidegger’s blind spots.
What are we to make of the late Heidegger, often dismissed as a mystic, an obscurantist, a bad poet, a technophobe?
To begin with, I would say that mystic is no insult and mysticism has a great tradition but let’s leave that aside. As for technophobe, I have three nieces who each had their own iPads before being able to walk. One of them refuses to eat unless she has her iPad in front of her. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen people almost run over because they were looking at their smartphones, or the number of times friends gathered around a table are all staring at their individual glowing screens instead of eating or drinking or talking to one another. I can’t help but think this is a profoundly fucked up mode of being-in-the-world and that things are getting worse...
"Nur noch ein Gott kann uns Retten." [Only a God can save us now.] Maybe...
Safranski turns to an old Zen parable. A great Zen master is supposed to have said: "Before I studied Zen for thirty years, I saw the rivers as rivers and the mountains as mountains. Then I arrived at a greater understanding and I saw that the rivers are not rivers and the mountains are not mountains. Now I have reached the essence of Zen and I see that the rivers are rivers and the mountains are mountains."
I like this story a lot but I think there is another Zen saying that better encapsulates the late Heidegger. "The finger that points at the moon is not the moon." The more that philosophy (even phenomenology) becomes elaborated, the further it is removed from the truth of lived experience. The more tortuous the attempts to force it back to the radical, the more spectacularly they fail. Philosophy begins in wonder. If there is anything to be learned from Heidegger, it is to learn to wonder again.
John Haugeland’s ironic formulation is an allusion to a famous statement of Heidegger during a lecture on Aristotle: “Regarding the personality of a philosopher, our only interest is that he was born at a certain time, that he worked and that he died.” It is also a neat summary of what many people, including many philosophers, will tell you is everything that any decent person needs to know about Heidegger.
It of course raises the question which plagues any philosophical biography, that is: why does it exist? We want our philosophers to be role models and sages. They should have no lusts, no moral imperfections, no interests outside of philosophy, no personality. Their biographies should fit on a postage stamp. They should approach as closely as possible the ideal of a robot prophet or saint or a disembodied brain. There has been precisely one person in the history of philosophy who fulfilled these expectations. His name was Immanuel Kant. The rest were human.
We can skip the question of why you should be interested in Heidegger; anyone coming to a biography has already decided that they are. But what can a biography tell us that a philosopher’s work itself doesn’t, beside some trivial gossip? A good philosophical biography should tell us about the development of a thinker, provide an overview of his or her work and situate the work in its appropriate historical and philosophical context ("Philosophy is its own time grasped in thought" - Hegel). It should be penetrating but not prying, juicy but not salacious, respectful but not a hagiography, critical but not a hatchet job, readable but not breezy, encyclopaedic but not encyclopaedic. It should have a clear structure which is both chronological and thematic. It should entertain and enlighten.
This is an almost impossible task. And yet miraculously, Safranski has pulled it off. He does a much better job here than in his widely-praised Nietzsche biography which is frankly a bit crap.
It would be a disservice here to provide a précis of the précis; but this is a job well done. We see the proto Heidegger, the seminarian (less by choice than by financial circumstances that made it his only possible route to higher education). The move from theology to philosophy. The early Heidegger, the phenomenologist. From the shadow of Husserl to putting Husserl in the shade. Heidegger the careerist, Heidegger the Nazi. The quiet years. The late Heidegger, Heidegger ὁ σκοτεινός, the sage of Todtnauberg. Throughout, the grappling with the question of Being. Never fully answered, never fully questioned, never fully formulated, thought as perpetual motion. And who, who has read Heidegger would deny the power of his thinking? Not of his answers (he was never satisfied of his own) but of that sheer vital force of thinking. ¨Es denkt in mir¨ he sometimes said to his son, “Ich kann mich nicht dagegen wehren.¨ (Perhaps: Thought thinks in me, I can not resist it.) Or as Hannah Arendt put it, "Heidegger does not think about something, Heidegger thinks the thing." Thinking. Denken. Immer denken. The title of a late work: “Was heisst denken?” (What is called thinking?). A famous saying: "Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht." (Science does not think.) Another: "Man denkt nicht mehr, sondern beschäftigt sich mit 'Philosophie'". (One does not think any more, one busies oneself with 'philosophy').
Here is the kern of Heidegger's method, "Destruktion". "Die Philosophie ist keine Lehre, sondern eine Tätigkeit". [Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. - Wittgenstein.] Imagine an ancient sword hanging in the British museum, behind glass, under argon. Perfectly preserved. Imagine a professional swordsman (and where would you find such a thing nowadays outside of a circus? And where would you find a philosopher nowadays outside of academia?) breaking the glass and lifting the sword and taking the heft of it and swinging it. An outrageous blasphemy, perhaps. Looking ridiculous, perhaps. But isn't the act closer to the essence of the sword than any brass plaque?
Of course we can bin Heidegger, but we should be aware of what else we would be binning: it is little exaggeration to say that continental philosophy of the 20th Century consists of a series of footnotes to Heidegger. Without Heidegger, there is no Sartre, no Merleau-Ponty, no Derrida, no Gadamer, no Levinas, no Löwith, no Ricoeur to name but a few.
"But he was a Nazi!"
Before reading Safranski I was more willing to stand up for Heidegger in this regard. But it seems yes, he was. For a short period and at least until 1933/34, he truly believed that the Nationalist-Socialist party heralded a spiritual revival and revolution of the German people. In his brief spell as Rector, he energetically attempted the Nazification of the University of Freiburg. He muddied the waters of his philosophising and teaching. As one of his students at the time said, "I staggered out of the lecture hall in a daze. I didn’t know whether to study the pre-Socratics or join the SA." Heidegger realised too late (much, much too late) that the Nazi party was in fact the apotheosis of a corrupted, contorted technical-scientific ideology that he thought it would help overturn. The philosophers thought he was too much of a Nazi. The Nazis thought he was too much of a philosopher. Left nowhere, he resigned the rectorship and fled from politics to the comparative safety of his books and his Todtnauberg hut...
Can genius and moral idiocy coexist in the same body? Yes. Is all of Heidegger’s work now tainted by his association with the Nazi party? Yes. Is all of Heidegger’s work an expression of Nazi ideology? No. Is Heidegger’s thinking Nazi thinking? No. Is there much in it of great interest and value? Yes. Was Heidegger a bad man? Yes. Was Heidegger a great thinker? Yes.
Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers asked themselves the same questions in an exchange of letters.
Jaspers: Can one as an impure soul, that is, as a soul that does not even feel its impurity and constantly try to force itself out of it, but one that thoughtlessly lives on in filth - can one who is indecent see what is purest?
Arendt: What you call impurity, I would call a lack of character, in the sense that he literally has none - not even a particularly bad one. And yet he lives in a depth and with a passion that one cannot easily forget. [1949]
A set of collected works (as yet incomplete) that will be over a hundred volumes, ranging over the entire history of philosophy. A Nachlass that is even bigger; we will probably never see it all. All that writing and practically nothing on ethics, practically nothing on politics? You could drive a bus through Heidegger’s blind spots.
What are we to make of the late Heidegger, often dismissed as a mystic, an obscurantist, a bad poet, a technophobe?
To begin with, I would say that mystic is no insult and mysticism has a great tradition but let’s leave that aside. As for technophobe, I have three nieces who each had their own iPads before being able to walk. One of them refuses to eat unless she has her iPad in front of her. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen people almost run over because they were looking at their smartphones, or the number of times friends gathered around a table are all staring at their individual glowing screens instead of eating or drinking or talking to one another. I can’t help but think this is a profoundly fucked up mode of being-in-the-world and that things are getting worse...
"Nur noch ein Gott kann uns Retten." [Only a God can save us now.] Maybe...
Safranski turns to an old Zen parable. A great Zen master is supposed to have said: "Before I studied Zen for thirty years, I saw the rivers as rivers and the mountains as mountains. Then I arrived at a greater understanding and I saw that the rivers are not rivers and the mountains are not mountains. Now I have reached the essence of Zen and I see that the rivers are rivers and the mountains are mountains."
I like this story a lot but I think there is another Zen saying that better encapsulates the late Heidegger. "The finger that points at the moon is not the moon." The more that philosophy (even phenomenology) becomes elaborated, the further it is removed from the truth of lived experience. The more tortuous the attempts to force it back to the radical, the more spectacularly they fail. Philosophy begins in wonder. If there is anything to be learned from Heidegger, it is to learn to wonder again.
February 28, 2025
if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
020220: well now i have read about 49 books involving hd...
040815: for someone i had decided not to read on or by, i have read far too much hd. i have read 6 books by him, in collections, in essays, and then 21 books on him to some degree. i have not read his masterwork 'being and time' (hereafter bt). i had decided, several times, that his acts before, during, after world war two, his enthusiastic, insensible, confusion of philosophy with politics- his 'greatest error', his unapologetic support for the rise of adolf hitler and the nazis- shocked, horrified, rendered his thought into educated, eloquent, delusion... and i did not want to read more...
and then i have. i have not changed my horror of his acts, i have perhaps changed my condemnation of his entire thought, for i have seen hd is a major, inescapable voice for much 20th century continental philosophy. so i would really like to understand him. i would like to find that point hd goes from authentic, brilliant, innovative, inspiring thinker- to inauthentic, obtuse, political fool. if hd had died right after he wrote bt, his place in philosophy of the century would be assured, no one would have to excuse his later career and common enthusiasm for the nazis...
i have not read many bios on hd, tending to believe great thought should be eternal, all in effect, genesis, truth. however historically expressed, however limited by the era, by conceptual, by artistic, contingency. i have found what little bio needed in my favourite on hd: The Philosophy of Heidegger, and really have not changed my reading since. this present book, in some chronology, does not accuse or excuse hd's nazi adventure, but by understating what careful 'political' reading of his actions, tend to soften the serious damning actions he was caught up in. rather perhaps the way most 'good germans' would like to imagine and so excuse culpability, and in this way i can see how this was a bestseller in germany, where it is a matter of getting along, of adjusting, of fear and friendship that allows so many common people to be swept up in nazi fervour...
but this is the point: hd was not one of these 'common people', not in his mind, not in the mind of those students, and whatever minimal effect his support of the nazis, it was real, it was persistent, it had who knows how much practical result. this book follows closely hd, i find most engaging those passages others- who have not read hd- do not enjoy. where i understand better this or that quote, this or that idea, the genesis of any idea, all the ways in which hd was so brilliant. from the 'lectern experience' to the assertion that the key to 'Being' is 'Time' well he did write a whole book on that, bt, the man was a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant philosopher. you could ask what about the rest of the time, but this might be mistaken: in enjoying your favourite athlete do you stop to think he is a philosophical idiot?
but then the rest of hd's life is not so easily dismissed. he had fantasies of the 'right time' for emergence of 'dasein', he wondered whether germany really needed so many philosophers- when they had him? hd dreamed of starting something of an academy like plato, but here closer to the work, the striving, the truth of german 'boy scouts'. hd thought at first that the nazis were a countering force to the mechanizing, inhuman, domination of 'being', the 'leveling' of all humans and worlds he saw in the russians and americans, in their versions of technocracy. hd as much as anyone in germany probably underestimated hitler, thought he could direct, promote, 'dasein', and was later convinced the nazis were only another symptom of degradation of the human. and then, as with this book, the messy realities are not thought about, not much mentioned: concentration camps, political murders, world war, attempted total destruction of an entire people- the jews, hd? did you apply your brilliant philosophy to them?
i understand that in french history there is a desire to refuse identity as collaborators when the nazis established the vichy government during the war, i understand the japanese history that focuses on the atom bombs that ended the war rather than the fact japan vigorously attacked other asian countries and committed such atrocities as the rape of nanking, i understand latin american total destruction of peoples and cultures predating contact with europe, i understand the americans' practically oblivious history of the genocide of natives and establishment of slavery of africans, i understand the equivalent process everywhere from canada to australia- even the ethnic cleansing of ishiguro kazuo's most recent book: The Buried Giant. i understand that the germans are not unique. so this understanding is forgiving but not forgetting...
i give this a 5 in recognition of the questioning questions it provokes. hd was a brilliant man who among other human failings was rather blind to his hubris, rather seduced by his own intellect and convinced it applied in all realms. i have never liked people who are so identified with how smart they are, so valuing only that in themselves and others. i do not like myself sometimes. a sense of humility, a sense of kindness, goes a long way, and as kings once had jokers who alone could mock them and remind them of their human dimensions- perhaps this is what hd needed as well...
and not everyone was so distracted: sentence quoted by julien benda- 'man belongs neither to his language, nor to his race; he belongs only to himself, for he is a free, that is, a moral, being'. for hd, you make your choices, you earn contempt...
020220: more
The Philosophy of Heidegger
Basic Writings
Heidegger: Thinking of Being
The Heidegger Reader
The New Heidegger
Introduction to Metaphysics
020220: well now i have read about 49 books involving hd...
040815: for someone i had decided not to read on or by, i have read far too much hd. i have read 6 books by him, in collections, in essays, and then 21 books on him to some degree. i have not read his masterwork 'being and time' (hereafter bt). i had decided, several times, that his acts before, during, after world war two, his enthusiastic, insensible, confusion of philosophy with politics- his 'greatest error', his unapologetic support for the rise of adolf hitler and the nazis- shocked, horrified, rendered his thought into educated, eloquent, delusion... and i did not want to read more...
and then i have. i have not changed my horror of his acts, i have perhaps changed my condemnation of his entire thought, for i have seen hd is a major, inescapable voice for much 20th century continental philosophy. so i would really like to understand him. i would like to find that point hd goes from authentic, brilliant, innovative, inspiring thinker- to inauthentic, obtuse, political fool. if hd had died right after he wrote bt, his place in philosophy of the century would be assured, no one would have to excuse his later career and common enthusiasm for the nazis...
i have not read many bios on hd, tending to believe great thought should be eternal, all in effect, genesis, truth. however historically expressed, however limited by the era, by conceptual, by artistic, contingency. i have found what little bio needed in my favourite on hd: The Philosophy of Heidegger, and really have not changed my reading since. this present book, in some chronology, does not accuse or excuse hd's nazi adventure, but by understating what careful 'political' reading of his actions, tend to soften the serious damning actions he was caught up in. rather perhaps the way most 'good germans' would like to imagine and so excuse culpability, and in this way i can see how this was a bestseller in germany, where it is a matter of getting along, of adjusting, of fear and friendship that allows so many common people to be swept up in nazi fervour...
but this is the point: hd was not one of these 'common people', not in his mind, not in the mind of those students, and whatever minimal effect his support of the nazis, it was real, it was persistent, it had who knows how much practical result. this book follows closely hd, i find most engaging those passages others- who have not read hd- do not enjoy. where i understand better this or that quote, this or that idea, the genesis of any idea, all the ways in which hd was so brilliant. from the 'lectern experience' to the assertion that the key to 'Being' is 'Time' well he did write a whole book on that, bt, the man was a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant philosopher. you could ask what about the rest of the time, but this might be mistaken: in enjoying your favourite athlete do you stop to think he is a philosophical idiot?
but then the rest of hd's life is not so easily dismissed. he had fantasies of the 'right time' for emergence of 'dasein', he wondered whether germany really needed so many philosophers- when they had him? hd dreamed of starting something of an academy like plato, but here closer to the work, the striving, the truth of german 'boy scouts'. hd thought at first that the nazis were a countering force to the mechanizing, inhuman, domination of 'being', the 'leveling' of all humans and worlds he saw in the russians and americans, in their versions of technocracy. hd as much as anyone in germany probably underestimated hitler, thought he could direct, promote, 'dasein', and was later convinced the nazis were only another symptom of degradation of the human. and then, as with this book, the messy realities are not thought about, not much mentioned: concentration camps, political murders, world war, attempted total destruction of an entire people- the jews, hd? did you apply your brilliant philosophy to them?
i understand that in french history there is a desire to refuse identity as collaborators when the nazis established the vichy government during the war, i understand the japanese history that focuses on the atom bombs that ended the war rather than the fact japan vigorously attacked other asian countries and committed such atrocities as the rape of nanking, i understand latin american total destruction of peoples and cultures predating contact with europe, i understand the americans' practically oblivious history of the genocide of natives and establishment of slavery of africans, i understand the equivalent process everywhere from canada to australia- even the ethnic cleansing of ishiguro kazuo's most recent book: The Buried Giant. i understand that the germans are not unique. so this understanding is forgiving but not forgetting...
i give this a 5 in recognition of the questioning questions it provokes. hd was a brilliant man who among other human failings was rather blind to his hubris, rather seduced by his own intellect and convinced it applied in all realms. i have never liked people who are so identified with how smart they are, so valuing only that in themselves and others. i do not like myself sometimes. a sense of humility, a sense of kindness, goes a long way, and as kings once had jokers who alone could mock them and remind them of their human dimensions- perhaps this is what hd needed as well...
and not everyone was so distracted: sentence quoted by julien benda- 'man belongs neither to his language, nor to his race; he belongs only to himself, for he is a free, that is, a moral, being'. for hd, you make your choices, you earn contempt...
020220: more
The Philosophy of Heidegger
Basic Writings
Heidegger: Thinking of Being
The Heidegger Reader
The New Heidegger
Introduction to Metaphysics
November 22, 2015
If you have read Heidegger ever, you know he can make your brain explode. He is a controversial figure for his behavior in the Third Reich, or rather his passivity, but besides his complicated personality and his complicated thinking - he was a revolutionary thinker. The absolutely brilliant Rüdiger Safranski is in my opinion maybe the only writer who actually managed to make Heidegger accessible to the "normal" interested reader. He writes such enlightening prose that I almost want to say he is better at expressing what Heidegger wanted to say than Heidegger himself. Actually, he certainly is. I'm very grateful for this book and I can recommend it beyond everything (and I wrote and read quite a bit about Heidegger) to anyone interested. While Time and Being stays closed to many, this books manages to carve out a path toward Heidegger's thinking. Thank you Rüdiger Safranski!
April 18, 2022
Ik snap nog steeds niks van het zijn, maar heb na het lezen van dit boek wel het idee dat ik er op een hoger fundamenteel niveau niks van snap.
January 14, 2022
Heidegger by then was a venerable old gentleman, and his former brusqueness and severity had mellowed with the years.
Closer to three stars, as I have mellowed with the years.
Special thanks to Jessie and Ilse for inspiring and encouraging my long neglected reading of this.
While I enjoyed most of this towering work, I fear the world still awaits a proper biography of Heidegger. My hesitation isn't just a response to the subsequent discovery of the black notebooks and other material but rather that Safranski gave us a intriguing explication of Heidegger's work, especially of Being and Time, and situated such in a stilted view of the philosophical and historical climate of his time. It is not exhaustive or detailed in any sense as the last 20 years of the philosopher's life is covered in 70 pages, much of that stocked with an odd comparison of Heidegger and Adorno.
I still struggle with Arendt's decisions in the 1950s and beyond regarding Heidegger. Safranski softens the blow with oblique details such as how both Arendt and Heidegger read Mann's The Magic Mountain at the time of their affair. There is also a strange interpretation of Heidegger's evolution of thinking, one as an accidental reflection of Dadaism. The episodes with Sartre and Celan demanded more attention but the final third of the book appeared taunting, playful even as the biographer appears glib yet stern in his indictment. A great thinker was also a liar and a Nazi.
Closer to three stars, as I have mellowed with the years.
Special thanks to Jessie and Ilse for inspiring and encouraging my long neglected reading of this.
While I enjoyed most of this towering work, I fear the world still awaits a proper biography of Heidegger. My hesitation isn't just a response to the subsequent discovery of the black notebooks and other material but rather that Safranski gave us a intriguing explication of Heidegger's work, especially of Being and Time, and situated such in a stilted view of the philosophical and historical climate of his time. It is not exhaustive or detailed in any sense as the last 20 years of the philosopher's life is covered in 70 pages, much of that stocked with an odd comparison of Heidegger and Adorno.
I still struggle with Arendt's decisions in the 1950s and beyond regarding Heidegger. Safranski softens the blow with oblique details such as how both Arendt and Heidegger read Mann's The Magic Mountain at the time of their affair. There is also a strange interpretation of Heidegger's evolution of thinking, one as an accidental reflection of Dadaism. The episodes with Sartre and Celan demanded more attention but the final third of the book appeared taunting, playful even as the biographer appears glib yet stern in his indictment. A great thinker was also a liar and a Nazi.
January 20, 2013
A tour de force. For those who have encountered Heidegger through Being and Time and his later formal works on technology, the man can seem to alternate between abstract diffuseness and collapsing particularity. Safranski gives us instead something that perhaps Heidegger himself would appreciate: the story of a grounded life, an historical existence, a sense that Heidegger was really there.
February 4, 2024
In my (admittedly limited) experience biograpgers often have too strong feelings about their "subject matter" to remain detached and impartial.
Not in this case, however.
While it is obvious that Safranski considers Heidegger to be one of the most original and most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, he is not in awe of the man to the point where he can no longer take a critical distance nor does he seem bent on settling scores.
Instead, Safranski discusses Heidegger's contribution to the tradition of Western philosophy in a balanced and nuanced way. Given that the man in question is without a doubt one of the most controversial thinkers of the twentieth century that, by itself, is quite an achievement.
I found Safranski's approach to demystify this utterly mystifying thinker in two complementary ways.
First, there is the very clear and insightful manner in which he discusses the basic intuitions and concepts underlying Heidegger's thought. Entire libraries have been written about such key words of Heideggerean philosophy as Dasein, Sorge, Stimmung, etc. Nevertheless, Safranski's succinct but nuanced discussions of them remain among the best I have come across. After reading Safranski, all of a sudden, the basic thrust of Heidegger's fundamental ontology becomes a lot clearer.
Second, there is the way in which Safranski contextualises Heidegger's thinking. Rather than continuously stressing the singularity of his thought - as so many biographers feel compelled to do when discussing a great thinker - Safranski approaches it in the way in which it should, in my view, be approached: as a original but nevertheless historically rooted philosophy which can be subject to illuminating comparisons with what other thinkers have had to say on the same subject.
The way in which Safranski deals with Heidegger's analysis of authenticity and inauthenticity in Being and Time is a good example. He not only clarifies the role of these concepts in the overall architecture of Heidegger's radical ontology but contextualises them by comparing the Heideggerean description of the inauthentic with what contemporaries such as Plessner, Musil, Mehring or Baum have written on the topic. As a result, the uniqueness of Heidegger's thought comes out somewhat diminished but his thinking also becomes a lot more intelligible.
The most illuminating pages in this respect where the ones dedicated to Heidegger and Sartre and Heidegger and Adorno. While admirers of either three all too often have the tendency to downplay the readily observable affinities between them, Safranski makes it clear how much they have in common and where exactly the differences lie.
In the case of Heidegger and Adorno, the comparison also allows the author to point to the limits of the radical social criticism they have in common. A radical criticism which paints such a bleak picture of modern society that the only viable option left is to flee in a brilliant but nonetheless abstract aestheticism.
Not in this case, however.
While it is obvious that Safranski considers Heidegger to be one of the most original and most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, he is not in awe of the man to the point where he can no longer take a critical distance nor does he seem bent on settling scores.
Instead, Safranski discusses Heidegger's contribution to the tradition of Western philosophy in a balanced and nuanced way. Given that the man in question is without a doubt one of the most controversial thinkers of the twentieth century that, by itself, is quite an achievement.
I found Safranski's approach to demystify this utterly mystifying thinker in two complementary ways.
First, there is the very clear and insightful manner in which he discusses the basic intuitions and concepts underlying Heidegger's thought. Entire libraries have been written about such key words of Heideggerean philosophy as Dasein, Sorge, Stimmung, etc. Nevertheless, Safranski's succinct but nuanced discussions of them remain among the best I have come across. After reading Safranski, all of a sudden, the basic thrust of Heidegger's fundamental ontology becomes a lot clearer.
Second, there is the way in which Safranski contextualises Heidegger's thinking. Rather than continuously stressing the singularity of his thought - as so many biographers feel compelled to do when discussing a great thinker - Safranski approaches it in the way in which it should, in my view, be approached: as a original but nevertheless historically rooted philosophy which can be subject to illuminating comparisons with what other thinkers have had to say on the same subject.
The way in which Safranski deals with Heidegger's analysis of authenticity and inauthenticity in Being and Time is a good example. He not only clarifies the role of these concepts in the overall architecture of Heidegger's radical ontology but contextualises them by comparing the Heideggerean description of the inauthentic with what contemporaries such as Plessner, Musil, Mehring or Baum have written on the topic. As a result, the uniqueness of Heidegger's thought comes out somewhat diminished but his thinking also becomes a lot more intelligible.
The most illuminating pages in this respect where the ones dedicated to Heidegger and Sartre and Heidegger and Adorno. While admirers of either three all too often have the tendency to downplay the readily observable affinities between them, Safranski makes it clear how much they have in common and where exactly the differences lie.
In the case of Heidegger and Adorno, the comparison also allows the author to point to the limits of the radical social criticism they have in common. A radical criticism which paints such a bleak picture of modern society that the only viable option left is to flee in a brilliant but nonetheless abstract aestheticism.
June 4, 2012
A must for understanding Heidegger.
February 13, 2013
To decipher a book like Being and Time in a serious way means months of careful study and repeated readings. It is every bit as fascinating as it is challenging, but it absolutely requires a certain level of dedication and commitment, as does all of Heidegger's writing. So after all that work it can be discouraging to hear the inevitable question: "Wasn't Heidegger a Nazi?"
Well, he was. And that has to be explained. And the explanation will never be satisfactory. But Safranski comes as close as I think we will get to a resolution of Heidegger's genius with his reprehensible failures in the thirties.
There is a tacit assumption (and judgment on the part of the critic) that there is a nexus between Heidegger's philosophical endeavors and his political life. After reading this biography I'm led to believe that it is in fact a disjunct and not a nexus at all. His failure was one of character, not of thinking.
Safranski goes into great depth -- far more than I expected -- and discusses details of Heidegger's work that will most likely baffle readers who are not already familiar with Being and Time and some of the later works. And this is as it should be. As a biographical subject Heidegger leaves a lot to be desired; aside from his extramarital affair with Hannah Arendt, his life was not very interesting. What fascinates is his work and the profound influence it had.
An extremely well written (and translated) biography of a difficult man. Probably the best bio I've read since Ellmann's James Joyce.
Well, he was. And that has to be explained. And the explanation will never be satisfactory. But Safranski comes as close as I think we will get to a resolution of Heidegger's genius with his reprehensible failures in the thirties.
There is a tacit assumption (and judgment on the part of the critic) that there is a nexus between Heidegger's philosophical endeavors and his political life. After reading this biography I'm led to believe that it is in fact a disjunct and not a nexus at all. His failure was one of character, not of thinking.
Safranski goes into great depth -- far more than I expected -- and discusses details of Heidegger's work that will most likely baffle readers who are not already familiar with Being and Time and some of the later works. And this is as it should be. As a biographical subject Heidegger leaves a lot to be desired; aside from his extramarital affair with Hannah Arendt, his life was not very interesting. What fascinates is his work and the profound influence it had.
An extremely well written (and translated) biography of a difficult man. Probably the best bio I've read since Ellmann's James Joyce.
September 12, 2012
I'm not going to go on a tirade blasting Safranski. He's a good writer and biographer who has done a good amount of research in preparing the book and put thought into the structure and language, working hard to wrap his brain around the philosophy of Heidegger, which is no small task. Presenting a complete intellectual biography of a figure as complex and dynamic as Heidegger is an incredibly difficult task. Few thinkers are going to present those sorts of challenges [a handful of German philosophers jump to mind as comparable; Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, in particular]. But Safranski hit several of my major turn-offs in constructing the book; the fact that I'm giving him two stars says a lot about the quality of the writing.
The first is that Safranski is neither generous nor engaged with the predecessors and interlocutors of Heidegger. He supplies cheap readings of pragmatists and positivists and empiricists in order to caricature them, presenting Heidegger as a titan knocking down absurd and comical intellectual foes. As someone who often empathizes deeply with those interlocutors and recognizes their place and importance in intellectual history. Being unfair to those people is an enormous problem, and a hard thing to forgive any thinker.
The second is that he is incredibly uncritical about the relationship between Heidegger's nationalism and the perception of Heidegger's moral status. He deals with it a bit towards the end of the book, in discussions of [particularly] Hannah Arendt's relationship with Heidegger, but there are a number of passages that he quotes that are deeply nationalistic and worth situating in the geopolitical history where he opts to ignore that aspect. He defends Heidegger admirably on the issue of anti-semitism, which I understand as someone who does this with Nietzsche periodically. But I think that the problems of Heidegger's nationalism and support for Hitler are so severely glossed over in a book that presumes to address his political situation [and dwells on that a great deal] that it is hard to forgive.
Finally, though perhaps less problematically, it seems that Safranski enjoys spending time aggressively rehashing Heidegger's arguments and positions. That is actually important to an intellectual biography, but as he frames these arguments he does it through [in order] Heidegger's religion as a young man, his academic relation to other philosophers during middle age, and his politics during his professional career. The problem is that all three of these elements persist in his philosophical view over time, and they are incredibly important. Heidegger's view of religion did have important implications for his politics and his philosophical position, and while Safranski gently touches on these things, he could easily have noted the points of persistence without dramatically expanding the text.
Overall, the text is worth a read for those interested in the life and philosophy of Heidegger, but I don't think that it can be called this truly immaculate account; these are very serious problems and, the first especially, should be kept in mind throughout the reading. I think these are worthwhile things to bear in mind for those new to Heidegger or not aware of some of the history of philosophy that Safranski engages.
The first is that Safranski is neither generous nor engaged with the predecessors and interlocutors of Heidegger. He supplies cheap readings of pragmatists and positivists and empiricists in order to caricature them, presenting Heidegger as a titan knocking down absurd and comical intellectual foes. As someone who often empathizes deeply with those interlocutors and recognizes their place and importance in intellectual history. Being unfair to those people is an enormous problem, and a hard thing to forgive any thinker.
The second is that he is incredibly uncritical about the relationship between Heidegger's nationalism and the perception of Heidegger's moral status. He deals with it a bit towards the end of the book, in discussions of [particularly] Hannah Arendt's relationship with Heidegger, but there are a number of passages that he quotes that are deeply nationalistic and worth situating in the geopolitical history where he opts to ignore that aspect. He defends Heidegger admirably on the issue of anti-semitism, which I understand as someone who does this with Nietzsche periodically. But I think that the problems of Heidegger's nationalism and support for Hitler are so severely glossed over in a book that presumes to address his political situation [and dwells on that a great deal] that it is hard to forgive.
Finally, though perhaps less problematically, it seems that Safranski enjoys spending time aggressively rehashing Heidegger's arguments and positions. That is actually important to an intellectual biography, but as he frames these arguments he does it through [in order] Heidegger's religion as a young man, his academic relation to other philosophers during middle age, and his politics during his professional career. The problem is that all three of these elements persist in his philosophical view over time, and they are incredibly important. Heidegger's view of religion did have important implications for his politics and his philosophical position, and while Safranski gently touches on these things, he could easily have noted the points of persistence without dramatically expanding the text.
Overall, the text is worth a read for those interested in the life and philosophy of Heidegger, but I don't think that it can be called this truly immaculate account; these are very serious problems and, the first especially, should be kept in mind throughout the reading. I think these are worthwhile things to bear in mind for those new to Heidegger or not aware of some of the history of philosophy that Safranski engages.
September 25, 2014
(Edição em Português): Comprei este livro há alguns anos atrás com a óbvia curiosidade (compartilhada provavelmente pela maioria dos leigos): "como um grande filósofo pode se tornar nazista?". Depois de anos na minha estante, finalmente decidi lê-lo. E qual foi minha surpresa, na medida em que lia, ao descobrir que não apenas se trata de uma biografia muito bem escrita e pesquisada, como também uma excelente introdução à filosofia de Heidegger? E todos sabemos o quão difícil é "explicar" filosofia, principalmente aquelas consideradas particularmente obscuras! No final, não apenas compreendi os rumos, nuances, contexto e contingências que respondem (até certo ponto) minha questão inicial como aprendi muito mais do que supunha. (E fica óbvio agora para mim que uma resposta objetiva e definitiva à minha pergunta inicial talvez não exista, mas ao menos o fluxo de condições está ali colocado, muito bem trabalhado). Devo salientar, entretanto, que o leitor não sairá um expert na filosofia de Heidegger, obviamente. Sairá com muitas dúvidas, mas isso é natural, já que compreender essa filosofia é uma outra tarefa, talvez impossível. Enfim, uma fantástica biografia e introdução a um dos maiores pensadores do século passado. Viveu e morreu no Tempo para indagar o Ser, e para os leitores agora resta a reflexão...
June 12, 2016
A wonderful book for anyone fascinated with the deepest ideas and how they can be lived. An honest, balanced, book about Heidegger's life of philosophy. It is also book about thinking, what it really is, and how it infuses culture with new possibilities for authenticity (true Being in the world).
This is a book about Heidegger's time, about what happened in Germany between the wars and how this great thinker became a Nazi. We also begin to understand how he handled his short love affair with National Socialism for the rest of his life.
Many other great thinkers and poets are discussed. Ideas are compared and great insight is provided into Heidegger's effect on others (lovers and detractors). You will also understand how philosophic thinking changed after WWII.
Heidegger and his ideas are always a bit of a mystery, but always a force to be reckoned with. He is truly one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.
This is a book about Heidegger's time, about what happened in Germany between the wars and how this great thinker became a Nazi. We also begin to understand how he handled his short love affair with National Socialism for the rest of his life.
Many other great thinkers and poets are discussed. Ideas are compared and great insight is provided into Heidegger's effect on others (lovers and detractors). You will also understand how philosophic thinking changed after WWII.
Heidegger and his ideas are always a bit of a mystery, but always a force to be reckoned with. He is truly one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.
August 10, 2016
I must say I did not think I would like this book although I studied some of Heidegger's writings in college and always enjoyed what he had to say. But biographies are tough: they are often bogged down with too many details that make the book, at least for me, dull. Safranski, however, while still painting a detailed portrait of Heidegger's life, keeps it interesting throughout the entire book. He not only has an engaging style of writing but also an eye for what details the reader wants to know. As one of the most prominent philosophers who ever lived, Heidegger's ideas were fascinating; just as fascinating were his long stretches spent in solitude so he could ruminate in peace, and his private life, which included a wife, one child that was his, a second child by his wife who was not his (and he knew and raised the boy anyway), his lovers and others with whom he associated. For anyone at all interested in Martin Heidegger, I would highly recommend this!
Read
September 2, 2021Came for an introduction into Being, stayed for Heidegger's swooning over skiing.
January 24, 2020
Look, I thought I was getting something else. I came to this after reading Safranski's very biographical biography of Goethe, which was flawed, but easy to read and genuinely about the man's life. This is not that. The focus here is very much on ideas, which is fine, because Heidegger was a philosophy. But had I not known a bit about Heidegger's ideas going in, I doubt I would have any knowledge about them coming out. The writing/translation is tortured beyond all belief; I suspect that Ewald Osers was not the right man for the job.
Now, there are good things about this book: in particular, the stuff on Heidegger's early years as a student was a bit enlightening, and the unexpected chapter about Heidegger and Adorno was interesting to me, just because I'm interested in Adorno--and Safranski is quite fair minded about that conflict. I'm being too harsh with my two stars. But someone has to warn potential readers that this is not a good biography, and it is not a good introduction to the philosophy. I'm not sure what it is. But you probably shouldn't read it, if you can find other introduction to the philosophy (Polt, say), or biographies.
Now, there are good things about this book: in particular, the stuff on Heidegger's early years as a student was a bit enlightening, and the unexpected chapter about Heidegger and Adorno was interesting to me, just because I'm interested in Adorno--and Safranski is quite fair minded about that conflict. I'm being too harsh with my two stars. But someone has to warn potential readers that this is not a good biography, and it is not a good introduction to the philosophy. I'm not sure what it is. But you probably shouldn't read it, if you can find other introduction to the philosophy (Polt, say), or biographies.
October 17, 2020
“It thinks in me. I cannot resist it” - this is how Heidegger saw himself in relation to thinking and Being. Fundamentally, Heidegger was a Black Forest peasant, a Catholic, a radical conservative, anti-democratic, against science and technology, and so on; but he was possessed by the same Being that possessed Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and a few other philosophers. His close friends - Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt - agreed that he had not much character. He sympathized with the Nazis and joined them mainly because he saw their movement as an opportunity for a radical metaphysical revolution. In the end, the Nazis were not as radical as he hoped and moreover they did not oppose technology, but instead spearheaded it later.
This book is great in providing some personal context to someone interested in Heidegger ideas and in any possible connection between such deep and important ideas and their thinker. On the other hand, if someone is directly interested in Heidegger's ideas, this book is not the best place to find them.
This book is great in providing some personal context to someone interested in Heidegger ideas and in any possible connection between such deep and important ideas and their thinker. On the other hand, if someone is directly interested in Heidegger's ideas, this book is not the best place to find them.
November 17, 2024
No voy a entrar en que mi desprecio por Heidegger (que se ha vuelto profundo gracias a este mismo libro que me ha demostrado poco menos que este hombre era un narcisista rodeado de personas muy buenas que no se merecía) ha colaborado a que pareciera que este libro no iba a acabar nunca. Pero tiene algunos problemas objetivos.
Por ejemplo, la filosofía del Heidegger tardío realmente no aparece por ninguna parte, a pesar de que el autor parece que es especialmente seguidor de ella.
Otra cosa muy irritante es que cuando aparecen autores, filósofos o pensadores menos conocidos por el público se actúa como si todos supiéramos quiénes son y qué decían, pero cuando se habla de Nietzsche y Platón (entre otros) sí que te los explica con lujo de detalles cuando entiendo que cualquier público objetivo de este libro los conoce de sobra. De la mención a Carnap mejor no hablamos porque rozó el esperpento.
Sin embargo, creo que se merece las 2 estrellas porque en las secciones biográficas el autor demuestra ser un gran narrador (o a lo mejor me ha influido que lo lea con versiones instrumentales de Taylor Swift de fondo, en cualquier caso es una pena que no se dedique a la novela).
Por ejemplo, la filosofía del Heidegger tardío realmente no aparece por ninguna parte, a pesar de que el autor parece que es especialmente seguidor de ella.
Otra cosa muy irritante es que cuando aparecen autores, filósofos o pensadores menos conocidos por el público se actúa como si todos supiéramos quiénes son y qué decían, pero cuando se habla de Nietzsche y Platón (entre otros) sí que te los explica con lujo de detalles cuando entiendo que cualquier público objetivo de este libro los conoce de sobra. De la mención a Carnap mejor no hablamos porque rozó el esperpento.
Sin embargo, creo que se merece las 2 estrellas porque en las secciones biográficas el autor demuestra ser un gran narrador (o a lo mejor me ha influido que lo lea con versiones instrumentales de Taylor Swift de fondo, en cualquier caso es una pena que no se dedique a la novela).
November 22, 2024
He terminado este libro que me ha amargado durante dos meses y ha hecho que odie a este filósofo
January 17, 2025
Essa é A biografia do Heidegger. Nenhuma outra chega perto.
May 7, 2019
Worthwhile insofar as it's the only English-language biography of Heidegger (there's a great three-volume work by Alfred Denker, but it has yet to be translated), though it's written in somewhat of a "popular history" style. It does, however, contain my favorite quotation about Heidegger:
Heidegger by then was a venerable old gentleman, and his former brusqueness and severity had mellowed with the years. He would go to a neighbor’s house to watch European Cup matches on television. During the legendary match between Hamburg and Barcelona, he knocked a teacup over in his excitement. The then director of the Freiburg theater met Heidegger on a train one day and tried to conduct a conversation with him on literature and the stage. He did not succeed, however, because Heidegger, still under the impact of an international soccer match, preferred to talk about Franz Beckenbauer. He was full of admiration for this player’s delicate ball control - and actually tried to demonstrate some of Beckenbauer’s finesses to his astonished interlocutor. He called Beckenbauer an ‘inspired player’ and praised his ‘invulnerability’ in duels on the field. Heidegger pronounced his expert opinion with assurance; while in Messkirch he had not only rung the bells but also been a useful left wing.
July 21, 2016
Wer den perfekten Zugang zu Heidegger sucht ist in diesem Buch sehr gut aufgehoben. Safranski schildert auf biographischer Basis den Denkweg des deutschen Meisters und thematisiert auch Heideggers Verstrickungen in den Nationalsozialismus (eventuell könnte man bei einer Überarbeitung noch die Schwarzen Hefte einbauen).
Sehr zu empfehlen als Einstiegswerk um einige Grundzüge des Denkens von Heidegger zu erfahren.
Sehr zu empfehlen als Einstiegswerk um einige Grundzüge des Denkens von Heidegger zu erfahren.
August 15, 2008
This provides a very complete intellectual biography of Heideggger.
January 15, 2009
Read this when it came out -- wonderful read in that the author is neither an academic nor philosopher, but a journalist. Clear and fascinating and still difficult!
December 29, 2024
Es la mejor literatura secundaria sobre Martin Heidegger que se ha escrito. No sólo narra los principales episodios de su vida de una forma coherente y amena, también es un libro que explica los conceptos principales de su filosofía de forma sencilla.
La excelencia la logra en su vertiente más contextual. La forma que tiene de poner esos conceptos en relación a otros autores, hechos de la época o preocupaciones personales del autor es maravillosa.
Gracias a este libro no sólo he refrescado el pensamiento heideggeriano, también he aclarado su implicación con el nacionalsocialismo, su relación primaria con la iglesia católica, la influencia en autores como Sartre, Gadamer o Marcuse, entre otras muchas cosas más. Particularmente hermosos son los capítulos sobre su relación de amante con Hannah Arendt, su encuentro con Celan, sus viajes a Grecia o sus últimos años en la cabaña de la Selva Negra.
Sencillamente un libro increíble y lo mejor que se ha escrito sobre Heidegger.
La excelencia la logra en su vertiente más contextual. La forma que tiene de poner esos conceptos en relación a otros autores, hechos de la época o preocupaciones personales del autor es maravillosa.
Gracias a este libro no sólo he refrescado el pensamiento heideggeriano, también he aclarado su implicación con el nacionalsocialismo, su relación primaria con la iglesia católica, la influencia en autores como Sartre, Gadamer o Marcuse, entre otras muchas cosas más. Particularmente hermosos son los capítulos sobre su relación de amante con Hannah Arendt, su encuentro con Celan, sus viajes a Grecia o sus últimos años en la cabaña de la Selva Negra.
Sencillamente un libro increíble y lo mejor que se ha escrito sobre Heidegger.
June 19, 2023
Es una biografía excelente y, al mismo tiempo, una notable introducción filosófica no sólo al pensamiento heideggeriano sino también al contexto cultural centroeuropeo general (desde la fenomenología al existencialismo).
El problema, desde mi punto de vista, es que hubiera funcionado mejor si Safranski sólo se hubiera centrado en la biografía y el contexto histórico. Hubiese sido más breve y no habría apretujado (eso sí, con un elegante conceptismo) un contenido tan vasto.
Hay suficientes (e idóneas) introducciones a la filosofía heideggeriana (de Vattimo a Polt), por lo que, leídas aquellas, la lectura de este libro me ha resultado densa innecesariamente.
Aun así, es innegable su gran valor.
El problema, desde mi punto de vista, es que hubiera funcionado mejor si Safranski sólo se hubiera centrado en la biografía y el contexto histórico. Hubiese sido más breve y no habría apretujado (eso sí, con un elegante conceptismo) un contenido tan vasto.
Hay suficientes (e idóneas) introducciones a la filosofía heideggeriana (de Vattimo a Polt), por lo que, leídas aquellas, la lectura de este libro me ha resultado densa innecesariamente.
Aun así, es innegable su gran valor.
October 4, 2018
'To forgive' is not 'to forget' (Derrida) and it functions in its true meaning only and only when you forgive the unforgivable thing, for ex. Heidegger's nazism (!)...
May 25, 2024
I found Rudiger Safranski’s biography of Heidegger to be characterized by extreme highs and lows in quality. To some degree that’s because it takes the genre of “intellectual biography” to a limit where it almost feels like it’s trying to be two books at the same time- a portrait of the intellectual life of the German nation in the twentieth century and a standard biography of Heidegger. The former is at times electrifying. The latter is, at its worst, right down maudlin.
If nothing else, “Between Good and Evil” is very readable. Safranski and Ewald Osers, his translator, produce engaging prose throughout. I would go so far as to say that Safranski demonstrates a level of genius for clearly and intelligently conveying the gist of complex bodies of thought in, at most, a couple of paragraphs. This enables him to spin an impressive portrait of an intellectual milieu in a given time and place. Indeed, one of the book’s main goals seems to be to situate Heidegger in his historic moment. I do feel I came away from the book with a richer understanding of what and who shaped Heidegger’s thinking.
Another aspect of the book that I enjoyed was the way it contextualized Heidegger’s work in lived circumstances. When reflecting on a philosopher’s oeuvre it is easy to imagine it as one continuous intellectual journey. For instance, Heideggereans often refer to dramatic changes in the Master’s thought as “the turning” as if it were one dramatic twist in plot. Safranski shows philosophizing happening in the course of life as it is lived by real, inconsistent human beings who don’t know themselves what course their thinking may take in the future and whose thought evolves not in one continuous flow but in stops and starts.
As a biographical story-teller, however, Safranski struck me as mediocre at best. And this hinders his ability to connect a milieu with a personal subject. Some of the ways Safranski attempts to connect Heidegger’s life and thought are clumsy, even facile. And Safranski’s short comings as a biographer interfere with his ability to adequately convey the richness of Heidegger’s philosophy. For instance, he interprets “Being and Time” as an allegory about disenchantment with the experimental democracy of the Weimar Republic. The philosopher’s notion of “falling” into “das man” is reduced to a rejection of the “they” of the political bickering of the party system rather than a blindness to one’s own, ultimately arbitrarily determined socialization.
Throughout one does not sense the full radicality of Heidegger’s thinking from Safranski’s commentary. Rather than a thinker who attempted to determine the structure of the possibility of being (as a human), Safranski’s Heidegger seems a thinker trying to awaken his audience to the novelty of existence. In the last chapter Safranski specifically compares Heidegger’s thinking to Zen philosophy. That what is there exists in the place of nothingness is supposed to make us feel warm and fuzzy. This, for Safranski, appears to be the source of Heidegger’s greatness.
One would never think Safranski’s Heidegger is the philosopher who was so influential to the post-structuralist generation of French thinkers. This might be by design. The only intellectual descendents of Heidegger who Safranski discusses are Sartre and Arendt (the oeuvre of the latter of whom he interprets as one long philosophical love letter to Heidegger- correcting his work by making it more “affirmational”, a particularly silly passage). While not naming any of Heidegger’s French disciples other than Sartre, Safranski vaguely derides what Heideggerean philosophy has since become, a pretty clear swipe at, most particularly, the thought of Derrida.
On a darker note, one feels no connection in the book between Heidegger’s thinking and his attraction to Nazism other than as a rejection of the superficiality of democracy. For Safranski’s Heidegger the Nazi movement would allow Germany to become it’s authentic “I” and reject the “they” of the vapid modern world. But in “Being and Time” the world that Dasein inhabits is simply the network of ways in which it knows how to utilize it. Safranski in no way explores the possibility that this line of thinking leads to the notion that the only authentic attitude towards the world is one of ruthless, perhaps violent, cultural imposition.
I enjoyed reading Safranski’s book, and found it at times quite rewarding. It’s weakest passages, however, reduced it to being an only barely worth-while read.
If nothing else, “Between Good and Evil” is very readable. Safranski and Ewald Osers, his translator, produce engaging prose throughout. I would go so far as to say that Safranski demonstrates a level of genius for clearly and intelligently conveying the gist of complex bodies of thought in, at most, a couple of paragraphs. This enables him to spin an impressive portrait of an intellectual milieu in a given time and place. Indeed, one of the book’s main goals seems to be to situate Heidegger in his historic moment. I do feel I came away from the book with a richer understanding of what and who shaped Heidegger’s thinking.
Another aspect of the book that I enjoyed was the way it contextualized Heidegger’s work in lived circumstances. When reflecting on a philosopher’s oeuvre it is easy to imagine it as one continuous intellectual journey. For instance, Heideggereans often refer to dramatic changes in the Master’s thought as “the turning” as if it were one dramatic twist in plot. Safranski shows philosophizing happening in the course of life as it is lived by real, inconsistent human beings who don’t know themselves what course their thinking may take in the future and whose thought evolves not in one continuous flow but in stops and starts.
As a biographical story-teller, however, Safranski struck me as mediocre at best. And this hinders his ability to connect a milieu with a personal subject. Some of the ways Safranski attempts to connect Heidegger’s life and thought are clumsy, even facile. And Safranski’s short comings as a biographer interfere with his ability to adequately convey the richness of Heidegger’s philosophy. For instance, he interprets “Being and Time” as an allegory about disenchantment with the experimental democracy of the Weimar Republic. The philosopher’s notion of “falling” into “das man” is reduced to a rejection of the “they” of the political bickering of the party system rather than a blindness to one’s own, ultimately arbitrarily determined socialization.
Throughout one does not sense the full radicality of Heidegger’s thinking from Safranski’s commentary. Rather than a thinker who attempted to determine the structure of the possibility of being (as a human), Safranski’s Heidegger seems a thinker trying to awaken his audience to the novelty of existence. In the last chapter Safranski specifically compares Heidegger’s thinking to Zen philosophy. That what is there exists in the place of nothingness is supposed to make us feel warm and fuzzy. This, for Safranski, appears to be the source of Heidegger’s greatness.
One would never think Safranski’s Heidegger is the philosopher who was so influential to the post-structuralist generation of French thinkers. This might be by design. The only intellectual descendents of Heidegger who Safranski discusses are Sartre and Arendt (the oeuvre of the latter of whom he interprets as one long philosophical love letter to Heidegger- correcting his work by making it more “affirmational”, a particularly silly passage). While not naming any of Heidegger’s French disciples other than Sartre, Safranski vaguely derides what Heideggerean philosophy has since become, a pretty clear swipe at, most particularly, the thought of Derrida.
On a darker note, one feels no connection in the book between Heidegger’s thinking and his attraction to Nazism other than as a rejection of the superficiality of democracy. For Safranski’s Heidegger the Nazi movement would allow Germany to become it’s authentic “I” and reject the “they” of the vapid modern world. But in “Being and Time” the world that Dasein inhabits is simply the network of ways in which it knows how to utilize it. Safranski in no way explores the possibility that this line of thinking leads to the notion that the only authentic attitude towards the world is one of ruthless, perhaps violent, cultural imposition.
I enjoyed reading Safranski’s book, and found it at times quite rewarding. It’s weakest passages, however, reduced it to being an only barely worth-while read.
July 29, 2015
Safranski is anxious to show that Heidegger was very much a man of his time and responded to or mirrored the major intellectual currents surrounding him. One of the truly intriguing similarities Saftanski remarks on is the one between Heidegger and dadaism, the everything is out the window art movement that maintained there is nothing left to believe in, there is only this and this and that and that. However, it is hard to see Heidegger joining the nihilistic fun in Zurich and Berlin as the poets read their laundry lists. Heidegger would certainly endorse their disbelief in public slogans and big truths, and their turn toward intense inspections of the details of life. But the dadaist hoped, at most, for a small spark of mystery from such inspection; Heidegger, coming from a life of theologian turned metaphysician, hoped for a bigger bang.
Of course, the intense inspection of the that before one's consciousness was taught to him as a student of phenomenology and Husserl himself. The keynote of phenomenology is that consciousness is intentional, consciousness is always consciousness of something. One of Heidegger's greatest achievements was the detailed description of man as always embedded in the world, consciousness meaning worry about the out there. Time comes into existence because an organism loses its instinctual foundation and so must care about the world, anxious over a future that is unknown and a past that put him in the present. In this, it seems to me that Heidegger pushed the acknowledgement that consciousness is intentional to its logical conclusion.
Safranskii would also say that Heidegger's time as a high official in Nazi Germany was essentially a man responding to his time. Heidegger always encouraged the turn toward authentic being, but this turn was discussed in Being and Time as a very individualistic endeavor. This was almost necessarily
so as public, social life was the seat of inauthentic being. After some criticism and debate about his solipsism, Heidegger forced himself to look outward and saw Hitler and his movement as the fresh start that would banish bourgeois triviality and bring back authentic energy. His tenure as head of a university meant to implement Nazi educational principles reads very much like the educational aspirations of the 1960's and 70's in America. There were young people who wanted to change the world and Heidegger felt that he was with them. Heidegger never really apologized for this time and seemingly found it an irrelevant question: if the Nazi movement turned into the history it became, it had nothing to do with his efforts or aspirations. Perhaps any writer who describes stages of authentic relationship to the world can go the way of Heidegger, that is, become a true believer in some movement that promises change in the direction he has encouraged. Is authenticity too strong an ambition, a dangerous word?
Of course, the intense inspection of the that before one's consciousness was taught to him as a student of phenomenology and Husserl himself. The keynote of phenomenology is that consciousness is intentional, consciousness is always consciousness of something. One of Heidegger's greatest achievements was the detailed description of man as always embedded in the world, consciousness meaning worry about the out there. Time comes into existence because an organism loses its instinctual foundation and so must care about the world, anxious over a future that is unknown and a past that put him in the present. In this, it seems to me that Heidegger pushed the acknowledgement that consciousness is intentional to its logical conclusion.
Safranskii would also say that Heidegger's time as a high official in Nazi Germany was essentially a man responding to his time. Heidegger always encouraged the turn toward authentic being, but this turn was discussed in Being and Time as a very individualistic endeavor. This was almost necessarily
so as public, social life was the seat of inauthentic being. After some criticism and debate about his solipsism, Heidegger forced himself to look outward and saw Hitler and his movement as the fresh start that would banish bourgeois triviality and bring back authentic energy. His tenure as head of a university meant to implement Nazi educational principles reads very much like the educational aspirations of the 1960's and 70's in America. There were young people who wanted to change the world and Heidegger felt that he was with them. Heidegger never really apologized for this time and seemingly found it an irrelevant question: if the Nazi movement turned into the history it became, it had nothing to do with his efforts or aspirations. Perhaps any writer who describes stages of authentic relationship to the world can go the way of Heidegger, that is, become a true believer in some movement that promises change in the direction he has encouraged. Is authenticity too strong an ambition, a dangerous word?
August 25, 2025
معلم ألماني: هايدغر
يربط الكتاب بين حياة مارتن هايدغر ومسيرته الفلسفية، مقدّمًا صورة شاملة وواسعة النطاق له، ولأثره في ظروف عصره وأزماته كالحرب العالمية الثانية، وانضمامه إلى الحزب النازي، ثم مواقفه اللاحقة واتهامه بمعاداة السامية. كما يتناول أبرز آرائه الفلسفية في قضايا مثل: الوجود، التقنية، الدازاين، الأصالة، والمزاج، مع تحليل لإرثه الفلسفي.
يظهر هايدغر في بداياته كتلميذ مخلص لأستاذه إدموند هوسرل، حيث ركّز على الفينومينولوجيا (الظاهراتية)، التي تأثر بها بعمق. ويتبنى هايدغر أن الوجود البشري يبدأ بفهم التجربة الحيّة.
الفينومينولوجيا عند هوسرل تقوم على تعليق الحكم بشأن الكيفية التي تظهر بها الأشياء في الوعي، بعيدًا عن أي خطوة معرفية أو أحكام مسبقة. فهوسرل سعى إلى تجريد الوعي من أي عناصر معرفية أو علمية مسبقة قد تختزل الخبرة الإنسانية، ليتيح رؤية الأشياء كما تنكشف في الوعي مباشرة ومن دون وسيط.
وهنا يبرز خلاف هايدغر مع أستاذه؛ إذ رأى أن الظاهراتية يجب أن تُوظَّف لفهم كينونة الإنسان نفسه، بينما استخدمها هوسرل كمقاربة تحليلية للوعي بالموضوعات. لقد حوّلها هايدغر إلى مقاربة وجودية تركز على الوجود الإنساني (الدازاين).
يرى هايدغر أن الفلسفة ضلّت طريقها حين سألت عن الموجودات بدلًا من أن تسأل عن الوجود نفسه. كما حاول تجاوز الثنائية القديمة بين الذات والموضوع، فاستعاض عن مصطلح الإنسان أو الذات الإنسانية بمصطلح الدازاين (“الموجود-هُناك”)، ليبتعد عن التأطير المعرفي والعلمي الضيق.
تناول هايدغر في فلسفته عدة موضوعات وصاغ لها مصطلحات خاصة، مثل: الدازاين، الأصالة، الزمنية، الإطار، التقنية.
يرى هايدغر أن الدازاين هو كائن يتجه نحو الموت، وهو موجود بشكل زمني يتجلى في ثلاثة أبعاد:
الماضي: تاريخ التجارب التي لم يخترها (الولادة/الثقافة/الظروف).
الحاضر: ويُعبر عنه بـ”العناية”، أي انشغال الدازاين بأمور محددة، سواء حاجاته اليومية أو مجاراة الآخرين في الحياة.
المستقبل: وهو الانفتاح على الإمكانات، التي من ضمنها الموت بوصفه الأفق النهائي.
في سياق الزمنية، يجترح هايدغر مفهوم العيش الأصيل مقابل العيش الزائف:
• الوجود الأصيل هو وعي الدازاين بمحدوديته وموته الفردي، مما يدفعه لتحمّل المسؤولية والعيش بصدق.
• أما الوجود الزائف فهو الانغماس في “الهمّ” والذوبان في الناس، دون وعي حقيقي بفناء الذات.
في فلسفة هايدغر يحتل العالم مكانة خاصة؛ فهو النداء الذي ينتزع الدازاين من انغماسه في اليومي ويذكّره بفنائيته. فالوجود ليس مجرد مسرح يشاهد فيه الدازاين الموجودات، بل هو أيضًا مجال ينكشف فيه الدازاين لنفسه.
أما التقنية، فقد تناولها هايدغر بعمق، معتبرًا أنها تنطوي على إطار (Gestell) يحدّد نظرتنا للعالم. فالعلم والتقنية يحوّلان الطبيعة إلى موارد صناعية: الغابة تصبح مجرد أخشاب، والأرض مجرد منجم للمعادن. هذا الإطار يختزل الوجود في منظور نفعي ضيق، ويقود إلى خطر تشييء الإنسان والعالم. غير أن هايدغر لم يعتبر التقنية شرًا مطلقًا، بل حذّر من أن تتحول إلى النظرة الأساسية للوجود، إذ حينها يصبح كل شيء ـ بما في ذلك الإنسان ـ مجرد “مورد” أو “طاقة” للاستهلاك.
ورأى هايدغر أن اللغة والشعر هما مفاتيح الوجود. فاللغة ليست مجرد أداة لنقل المعلومات، بل هي بيت الكينونة، إذ ينكشف الوجود عبرها ويتجلى للفهم. الكلمات تستحضر العالم وتربط الدازاين بوجوده وبزمنه، وتتيح له إدراك معاني الحياة والموت والأصالة.
⸻
منصور يحيى
02/03/1447
25/02/2025
يربط الكتاب بين حياة مارتن هايدغر ومسيرته الفلسفية، مقدّمًا صورة شاملة وواسعة النطاق له، ولأثره في ظروف عصره وأزماته كالحرب العالمية الثانية، وانضمامه إلى الحزب النازي، ثم مواقفه اللاحقة واتهامه بمعاداة السامية. كما يتناول أبرز آرائه الفلسفية في قضايا مثل: الوجود، التقنية، الدازاين، الأصالة، والمزاج، مع تحليل لإرثه الفلسفي.
يظهر هايدغر في بداياته كتلميذ مخلص لأستاذه إدموند هوسرل، حيث ركّز على الفينومينولوجيا (الظاهراتية)، التي تأثر بها بعمق. ويتبنى هايدغر أن الوجود البشري يبدأ بفهم التجربة الحيّة.
الفينومينولوجيا عند هوسرل تقوم على تعليق الحكم بشأن الكيفية التي تظهر بها الأشياء في الوعي، بعيدًا عن أي خطوة معرفية أو أحكام مسبقة. فهوسرل سعى إلى تجريد الوعي من أي عناصر معرفية أو علمية مسبقة قد تختزل الخبرة الإنسانية، ليتيح رؤية الأشياء كما تنكشف في الوعي مباشرة ومن دون وسيط.
وهنا يبرز خلاف هايدغر مع أستاذه؛ إذ رأى أن الظاهراتية يجب أن تُوظَّف لفهم كينونة الإنسان نفسه، بينما استخدمها هوسرل كمقاربة تحليلية للوعي بالموضوعات. لقد حوّلها هايدغر إلى مقاربة وجودية تركز على الوجود الإنساني (الدازاين).
يرى هايدغر أن الفلسفة ضلّت طريقها حين سألت عن الموجودات بدلًا من أن تسأل عن الوجود نفسه. كما حاول تجاوز الثنائية القديمة بين الذات والموضوع، فاستعاض عن مصطلح الإنسان أو الذات الإنسانية بمصطلح الدازاين (“الموجود-هُناك”)، ليبتعد عن التأطير المعرفي والعلمي الضيق.
تناول هايدغر في فلسفته عدة موضوعات وصاغ لها مصطلحات خاصة، مثل: الدازاين، الأصالة، الزمنية، الإطار، التقنية.
يرى هايدغر أن الدازاين هو كائن يتجه نحو الموت، وهو موجود بشكل زمني يتجلى في ثلاثة أبعاد:
الماضي: تاريخ التجارب التي لم يخترها (الولادة/الثقافة/الظروف).
الحاضر: ويُعبر عنه بـ”العناية”، أي انشغال الدازاين بأمور محددة، سواء حاجاته اليومية أو مجاراة الآخرين في الحياة.
المستقبل: وهو الانفتاح على الإمكانات، التي من ضمنها الموت بوصفه الأفق النهائي.
في سياق الزمنية، يجترح هايدغر مفهوم العيش الأصيل مقابل العيش الزائف:
• الوجود الأصيل هو وعي الدازاين بمحدوديته وموته الفردي، مما يدفعه لتحمّل المسؤولية والعيش بصدق.
• أما الوجود الزائف فهو الانغماس في “الهمّ” والذوبان في الناس، دون وعي حقيقي بفناء الذات.
في فلسفة هايدغر يحتل العالم مكانة خاصة؛ فهو النداء الذي ينتزع الدازاين من انغماسه في اليومي ويذكّره بفنائيته. فالوجود ليس مجرد مسرح يشاهد فيه الدازاين الموجودات، بل هو أيضًا مجال ينكشف فيه الدازاين لنفسه.
أما التقنية، فقد تناولها هايدغر بعمق، معتبرًا أنها تنطوي على إطار (Gestell) يحدّد نظرتنا للعالم. فالعلم والتقنية يحوّلان الطبيعة إلى موارد صناعية: الغابة تصبح مجرد أخشاب، والأرض مجرد منجم للمعادن. هذا الإطار يختزل الوجود في منظور نفعي ضيق، ويقود إلى خطر تشييء الإنسان والعالم. غير أن هايدغر لم يعتبر التقنية شرًا مطلقًا، بل حذّر من أن تتحول إلى النظرة الأساسية للوجود، إذ حينها يصبح كل شيء ـ بما في ذلك الإنسان ـ مجرد “مورد” أو “طاقة” للاستهلاك.
ورأى هايدغر أن اللغة والشعر هما مفاتيح الوجود. فاللغة ليست مجرد أداة لنقل المعلومات، بل هي بيت الكينونة، إذ ينكشف الوجود عبرها ويتجلى للفهم. الكلمات تستحضر العالم وتربط الدازاين بوجوده وبزمنه، وتتيح له إدراك معاني الحياة والموت والأصالة.
⸻
منصور يحيى
02/03/1447
25/02/2025
May 14, 2007
I read this while also engaging Heidegger's Being and Time for the first time. This is a great "philosophical biography." One can read this for the brute biographical facts of Heidegger's life, but the text investigates much more as well. Safranski offers a great explication of Heidegger's general project in terms that both the lay-man and the advanced student might appreciate. Safranski also paints a vivid portrait of German intellectual culture just prior to the rise of the 3rd Reich. There is good commentary on Husserl, Weber (as well as others) and on how their thought relates to that of Heidegger. Also, check out Safranski's bio on Nietzsche (not as good but still worth the read...).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews