|Full name||Martin Heidegger|
|Born||September 26, 1889
Meßkirch, Baden, Germany
|Died||26 May 1976(1976-05-26) (aged 86)
Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
|School||Phenomenology · Hermeneutics · Existentialism|
|Main interests||Ontology · Metaphysics · Art · Greek philosophy · Technology · Language · Poetry · Thinking|
|Notable ideas||Dasein · Gestell · Heideggerian terminology|
Martin Heidegger (September 26, 1889 – May 26, 1976); German pronunciation: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]) was a German philosopher known for his existential and phenomenological explorations of the “question of Being.”
Heidegger argues that philosophy is preoccupied with what exists and has forgotten the question of the “ground” of being. We find ourselves “always already” fallen into a world that already existed; but he insists that we have forgotten the basic question of what being itself is. This question defines our central nature. He argues that we are practical agents, caring and concerned about our projects in the world, and allowing it to reveal, or “unconceal” itself to us. He also says that our manipulation of reality is often harmful and hides our true being as essentially limited participants, not masters, of the world which we discover.
Heidegger wrote about these issues in his best-known book, Being and Time (1927), which is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. Heidegger’s influence is far reaching, from philosophy to deconstruction and literary theory, theology, architecture, and artificial intelligence.
Heidegger claimed that Western philosophy since Plato has misunderstood what it means for something “to be”, tending to approach this question in terms of a being, rather than asking about Being itself. In other words, Heidegger believed all investigations of being have historically focused on particular entities and their properties, or have treated Being itself as an entity, or substance, with properties. A more authentic analysis of being would, for Heidegger, investigate “that on the basis of which beings are already understood,” or that which underlies all particular entities and allows them to show up as entities in the first place (see world disclosure). But since philosophers and scientists have overlooked the more basic, pre-theoretical ways of being from which their theories derive, and since they have incorrectly applied those theories universally, they have confused our understanding of being and human existence. To avoid these deep-rooted misconceptions, Heidegger believed philosophical inquiry must be conducted in a new way, through a process of retracing the steps of the history of philosophy.
Heidegger argued that this misunderstanding, beginning with Plato, has left its traces in every stage of Western thought. All that we understand, from the way we speak to our notions of “common sense“, is susceptible to error, to fundamental mistakes about the nature of being. These mistakes filter into the terms through which being is articulated in the history of philosophy—such as reality, logic, God, consciousness, and presence. In his later philosophy, Heidegger argues that this profoundly affects the way in which human beings relate to modern technology.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that his writing is ‘notoriously difficult’, possibly because his thinking was ‘original’ and clearly on obscure and innovative topics. Heidegger accepted this charge, stating ‘Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy’, and suggesting that intelligibility is what he is critically trying to examine.
Heidegger’s work has strongly influenced philosophy, aesthetics of literature, and the humanities. Within philosophy it played a crucial role in the development of existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstructionism, postmodernism, and continental philosophy in general. Well-known philosophers such as Karl Jaspers, Leo Strauss, Ahmad Fardid, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Lévinas, Hannah Arendt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, William E. Connolly, and Jacques Derrida have all analyzed Heidegger’s work.
Heidegger supported National Socialism and was a member of the Nazi Party from May 1933 until May 1945. His defenders, notably Hannah Arendt, see this support as arguably a personal ” ‘error’ ” (a word which Arendt placed in quotation marks when referring to Heidegger’s Nazi-era politics). Defenders think this error was largely irrelevant to Heidegger’s philosophy. Critics, such as his former students Emmanuel Levinas and Karl Löwith, claim that Heidegger’s support for National Socialism revealed flaws inherent in his thought. 
 Early years
Heidegger was born in rural Meßkirch, Germany. Raised a Roman Catholic, he was the son of the sexton of the village church, Friedrich Heidegger, and his wife Johanna, née Kempf. In their faith, his parents adhered to the First Vatican Council of 1870, which was observed mainly by the poorer class of Meßkirch. The religious controversy between the wealthy Altkatholiken and the working class led to the temporary use of a converted barn for the Roman Catholics. At the festive reunion of the congregation in 1895, the Old Catholic sexton handed the key to six-year-old Martin.
Heidegger’s family could not afford to send him to university, so he entered a Jesuit seminary, though he was turned away within weeks because of the health requirement and what the director and doctor of the seminary described as a psychosomatic heart condition. Heidegger later left Catholicism, describing it as incompatible with his philosophy. After studying theology at the University of Freiburg from 1909 to 1911, he switched to philosophy, in part again because of his heart condition.
Heidegger completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 influenced by Neo-Thomism and Neo-Kantianism, and in 1916 finished his venia legendi with a thesis on Duns Scotus influenced by Heinrich Rickert and Edmund Husserl. In the two years following, he worked first as an unsalaried Privatdozent, then served as a soldier during the final year of World War I, working behind a desk and never leaving Germany. After the war, he served as a salaried senior assistant to Edmund Husserl at the University of Freiburg in the Black Forest from 1919 until 1923.
In 1923, Heidegger was elected to an extraordinary Professorship in Philosophy at the University of Marburg. His colleagues there included Rudolf Bultmann, Nicolai Hartmann, and Paul Natorp. Heidegger’s students at Marburg included Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Gerhard Krüger, Leo Strauss, Jacob Klein, Gunther (Stern) Anders, and Hans Jonas. Through a confrontation with Aristotle he began to develop in his lectures the main theme of his philosophy: the question of the sense of being. He extended the concept of subject to the dimension of history and concrete existence, which he found prefigured in such Christian thinkers as Saint Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Luther, and Kierkegaard. He also read the works of Dilthey, Husserl, and Max Scheler.
In 1927, Heidegger published his main work Sein und Zeit (Being and Time). When Husserl retired as Professor of Philosophy in 1928, Heidegger accepted Freiburg’s election to be his successor, in spite of a counter-offer by Marburg. Heidegger remained at Freiburg im Breisgau for the rest of his life, declining a number of later offers, including one from Humboldt University of Berlin. His students at Freiburg included Charles Malik, Herbert Marcuse, and Ernst Nolte. Emmanuel Levinas attended his lecture courses during his stay in Freiburg in 1928.
Heidegger was elected rector of the University on April 21, 1933, and joined the National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party on May 1. In his inaugural address as rector on May 27, and in political speeches and articles from the same year, he expressed his support for the Nazi cause and its leader, Adolf Hitler. He resigned the rectorate in April 1934, but remained a member of the Nazi party until 1945.
In late 1946, as France engaged in épuration légale, the French military authorities determined that Heidegger should be forbidden from teaching or participating in any university activities because of his association with the Nazi Party. The denazification procedures against Heidegger continued until March 1949, when he was finally pronounced a “Mitläufer” (literally, mit=with, Läufer=runner, i.e. “one who runs along with”, but the equivalent meaning in English is closer to “bandwagon effect” or “herd instinct”, standing for the notion that people often do and believe things merely because many other people do and believe the same things) of National Socialism, and no punitive measures against him were proposed. This opened the way for his readmission to teaching at Freiburg University in the winter semester of 1950–51. He was granted emeritus status and then taught regularly from 1951 until 1958, and by invitation until 1967.
 Personal life
Heidegger married Elfride Petri on March 21, 1917, in a Catholic ceremony officiated by his friend Engelbert Krebs, and a week later in a Protestant ceremony in the presence of her parents. Their first son Jörg was born in 1919. According to published correspondence between the spouses, Hermann (born 1920) is the son of Elfride and Friedel Caesar.
Martin Heidegger had extramarital affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany prior to World War II, and resumed contact with both of them after the war.
Heidegger spent much time at his vacation home at Todtnauberg, on the edge of the Black Forest. He considered the seclusion provided by the forest to be the best environment in which to engage in philosophical thought.
Heidegger died on May 26, 1976, and was buried in the Meßkirch cemetery.
 Being, time, and Dasein
Heidegger’s philosophy is founded on the attempt to conjoin what he considers two fundamental insights: the first is his observation that, in the course of over 2,000 years of history, philosophy has attended to all the beings that can be found in the world (including the “world” itself), but has forgotten to ask what “being” itself is. This is Heidegger’s “question of being,” and it is Heidegger’s fundamental concern throughout his work. One crucial source of this insight was Heidegger’s reading of Franz Brentano’s treatise on Aristotle’s manifold uses of the word “being,” a work which provoked Heidegger to ask what kind of unity underlies this multiplicity of uses. Heidegger opens his magnum opus, Being and Time, with a citation from Plato’s Sophist  indicating that Western philosophy has neglected “being” because it was considered obvious, rather than as worthy of question. Heidegger’s intuition about the question of being is thus an historical argument, which in his later work becomes his concern with the “history of being,” that is, the history of the forgetting of being, which according to Heidegger requires that philosophy retrace its footsteps through a productive “destruction” of the history of philosophy.
The second intuition animating Heidegger’s philosophy derives from the influence of Edmund Husserl, a philosopher largely uninterested in questions of philosophical history. Rather, Husserl argued that all that philosophy could and should be a description of experience (hence the phenomenological slogan, “to the things themselves”). But for Heidegger, this meant understanding that experience is always already situated in a world and in ways of being. Thus Husserl’s understanding that all consciousness is “intentional” (in the sense that it is always intended toward something, and is always “about” something) is transformed in Heidegger’s philosophy, becoming the thought that all experience is grounded in “care.”
This is the basis of Heidegger’s “existential analytic”, as he develops it in Being and Time. Heidegger argues that to describe experience properly entails finding the being for whom such a description might matter. Heidegger thus conducts his description of experience with reference to “Dasein,” the being for whom being is a question.
In Being and Time, Heidegger criticized the abstract and metaphysical character of traditional ways of grasping human existence as rational animal, person, man, soul, spirit, or subject. Dasein, then, is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology, but is rather understood by Heidegger to be the condition of possibility for anything like a philosophical anthropology. Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world amidst things and with others, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one’s own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one’s own existence, is the basis of Heidegger’s notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the “vulgar” temporality of calculation and of public life.
The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially concerned with time. That Dasein is thrown into an already existing world and thus into its mortal possibilities does not only mean that Dasein is an essentially temporal being; it also implies that the description of Dasein can only be carried out in terms inherited from the Western tradition itself. For Heidegger, unlike for Husserl, philosophical terminology could not be divorced from the history of the use of that terminology, and thus genuine philosophy could not avoid confronting questions of language and meaning. The existential analytic of Being and Time was thus always only a first step in Heidegger’s philosophy, to be followed by the “dismantling” (Destruktion) of the history of philosophy, that is, a transformation of its language and meaning, that would have made of the existential analytic only a kind of “limit case” (in the sense in which special relativity is a limit case of general relativity).
That Heidegger did not write this second part of Being and Time, and that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger’s subsequent writings on the history of being, might be interpreted as a failure to conjugate his account of individual experience with his account of the vicissitudes of the collective human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this failure is due to a flaw in Heidegger’s account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to oppose vulgar and authentic time.
 Being and Time
Being and Time (German title: Sein und Zeit), published in 1927, is Heidegger’s first academic book. He had been under pressure to publish in order to qualify for Husserl’s chair at University of Freiburg and the success of this work ensured his appointment to the post.
It investigates the question of being by asking about the being for whom being is a question. Heidegger names this being Dasein (see above), and the book pursues its investigation through themes such as mortality, care, anxiety, temporality, and historicity. It was Heidegger’s original intention to write a second half of the book, consisting of a “Destruktion” of the history of philosophy—that is, the transformation of philosophy by re-tracing its history—but he never completed this project.
 Later works: The Turn
Heidegger’s later works, after the Second World War, seem to many commentators (e.g. William J. Richardson) to at least reflect a shift of focus, if not indeed a major change in his philosophical outlook. One way this has been understood is as a shift from “doing” to “dwelling”. However, others feel that this is to overstate the difference. For example, in 2011 Mark Wrathall argued that Heidegger pursued and refined the central notion of unconcealment throughout his life as a philosopher. Its importance and continuity in his thinking, Wrathall states, shows that he did not have a ‘turn’. A reviewer of Wrathall’s book stated: “An ontology of unconcealment … means a description and analysis of the broad contexts in which entities show up as meaningful to us, as well as the conditions under which such contexts, or worlds, emerge and fade.”
Heidegger focuses less on the way in which the structures of being are revealed in everyday behavior, and more on the way in which behavior itself depends on a prior “openness to being.” The essence of being human is the maintenance of this openness. Heidegger contrasts this openness to the “will to power” of the modern human subject, which is one way of forgetting this originary openness.
Heidegger understands the commencement of the history of Western philosophy as a brief period of authentic openness to being, during the time of the pre-Socratics, especially Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. This was followed, according to Heidegger, by a long period increasingly dominated by the forgetting of this initial openness, a period which commences with Plato, and which occurs in different ways throughout Western history.
Two recurring themes of Heidegger’s later writings are poetry and technology. Heidegger sees poetry and technology as two contrasting ways of “revealing.” Poetry reveals being in the way in which, if it is genuine poetry, it commences something new. Technology, on the other hand, when it gets going, inaugurates the world of the dichotomous subject and object, which modern philosophy commencing with Descartes also reveals. But with modern technology a new stage of revealing is reached, in which the subject-object distinction is overcome even in the “material” world of technology. The essence of modern technology is the conversion of the whole universe of beings into an undifferentiated “standing reserve” (Bestand) of energy available for any use to which humans choose to put it. Heidegger described the essence of modern technology as Gestell, or “enframing.” Heidegger does not unequivocally condemn technology: while he acknowledges that modern technology contains grave dangers, Heidegger nevertheless also argues that it may constitute a chance for human beings to enter a new epoch in their relation to being. Despite this, some commentators have insisted that an agrarian nostalgia permeates his later work.
In a 1950 lecture he formulated the famous saying Language speaks, later published in the 1959 essays collection Unterwegs zur Sprache, and collected in the 1971 English book Poetry, Language, Thought.
Heidegger’s later works include Vom Wesen der Wahrheit (“On the Essence of Truth”, 1930), Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes (“The Origin of the Work of Art“, 1935), Einführung in die Metaphysik (“Introduction to Metaphysics“, 1935), Bauen Wohnen Denken (“Building Dwelling Thinking”, 1951), and Die Frage nach der Technik (“The Question Concerning Technology“, 1954) and Was heisst Denken? (“What Is Called Thinking?” 1954). Also Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) (Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning)), composed in the years 1936–38 but not published until 1989, on the centennial of Heidegger’s birth.
 St. Augustine of Hippo
Recent scholarship has shown that Heidegger was substantially influenced by St. Augustine of Hippo and that Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time would not have been possible without the influence of Augustine’s thought. Augustine’s Confessions was particularly influential in shaping Heidegger’s thought.
 Aristotle and the Greeks
Heidegger was influenced at an early age by Aristotle, mediated through Catholic theology, medieval philosophy, and Franz Brentano. Aristotle’s ethical, logical, and metaphysical works were crucial to the development of his thought in the crucial period of the 1920s. Although he later worked less on Aristotle, Heidegger recommended postponing reading Nietzsche, and to “first study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years.” In reading Aristotle, Heidegger increasingly contested the traditional Latin translation and scholastic interpretation of his thought. Particularly important (not least for its influence upon others, both in their interpretation of Aristotle and in rehabilitating a neo-Aristotelian “practical philosophy”) was his radical reinterpretation of Book Six of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and several books of the Metaphysics. Both informed the argument of Being and Time.
The idea of asking about being may be traced back via Aristotle to Parmenides. Heidegger claimed to have revived the question of being, the question having been largely forgotten by the metaphysical tradition extending from Plato to Descartes, a forgetfulness extending to the Age of Enlightenment and then to modern science and technology. In pursuit of the retrieval of this question, Heidegger spent considerable time reflecting on ancient Greek thought, in particular on Plato, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Anaximander, as well as on the tragic playwright Sophocles .
Heidegger’s very early project of developing a “hermeneutics of factical life” and his hermeneutical transformation of phenomenology was influenced in part by his reading of the works of Wilhelm Dilthey.
Of the influence of Dilthey, Hans-Georg Gadamer writes the following: “As far as Dilthey is concerned, we all know today what I have known for a long time: namely that it is a mistake to conclude on the basis of the citation in Being and Time that Dilthey was especially influential in the development of Heidegger’s thinking in the mid-1920s. This dating of the influence is much too late.” He adds that by the fall of 1923 it was plain that Heidegger felt “the clear superiority of Count Yorck over the famous scholar, Dilthey.” Gadamer nevertheless makes clear that Dilthey’s influence was important in helping the youthful Heidegger “in distancing himself from the systematic ideal of Neo-Kantianism, as Heidegger acknowledges in Being and Time.” Based on Heidegger’s earliest lecture courses, in which Heidegger already engages Dilthey’s thought prior to the period Gadamer mentions as “too late”, scholars as diverse as Theodore Kisiel and David Farrell Krell have argued for the importance of Diltheyan concepts and strategies in the formation of Heidegger’s thought.
Even though Gadamer’s interpretation of Heidegger has been questioned, there is little doubt that Heidegger seized upon Dilthey’s concept of hermeneutics. Heidegger’s novel ideas about ontology required a gestalt formation, not merely a series of logical arguments, in order to demonstrate his fundamentally new paradigm of thinking, and the hermeneutic circle offered a new and powerful tool for the articulation and realization of these ideas.
There is disagreement over the degree of influence that Husserl had on Heidegger’s philosophical development, just as there is disagreement about the degree to which Heidegger’s philosophy is grounded in phenomenology. These disagreements centre around how much of Husserlian phenomenology is contested by Heidegger, and how much this phenomenology in fact informs Heidegger’s own understanding.
On the relation between the two figures, Gadamer wrote: “When asked about phenomenology, Husserl was quite right to answer as he used to in the period directly after World War I: ‘Phenomenology, that is me and Heidegger’.” Nevertheless, Gadamer noted that Heidegger was no patient collaborator with Husserl, and that Heidegger’s “rash ascent to the top, the incomparable fascination he aroused, and his stormy temperament surely must have made Husserl, the patient one, as suspicious of Heidegger as he always had been of Max Scheler’s volcanic fire.”
Robert J. Dostal understood the importance of Husserl to be profound:
Heidegger himself, who is supposed to have broken with Husserl, bases his hermeneutics on an account of time that not only parallels Husserl’s account in many ways but seems to have been arrived at through the same phenomenological method as was used by Husserl…. The differences between Husserl and Heidegger are significant, but if we do not see how much it is the case that Husserlian phenomenology provides the framework for Heidegger’s approach, we will not be able to appreciate the exact nature of Heidegger’s project in Being and Time or why he let it unfinished.
Daniel O. Dahlstrom saw Heidegger’s presentation of his work as a departure from Husserl as unfairly misrepresenting Husserl’s own work. Dahlstrom concluded his consideration of the relation between Heidegger and Husserl as follows:
Heidegger’s silence about the stark similarities between his account of temporality and Husserl’s investigation of internal time-consciousness contributes to a misrepresentation of Husserl’s account of intentionality. Contrary to the criticisms Heidegger advances in his lectures, intentionality (and, by implication, the meaning of ‘to be’) in the final analysis is not construed by Husserl as sheer presence (be it the presence of a fact or object, act or event). Yet for all its “dangerous closeness” to what Heidegger understands by temporality, Husserl’s account of internal time-consciousness does differ fundamentally. In Husserl’s account the structure of protentions is accorded neither the finitude nor the primacy that Heidegger claims are central to the original future of ecstatic-horizonal temporality.
Heideggerians regarded Søren Kierkegaard as, by far, the greatest philosophical contributor to Heidegger’s own existentialist concepts. Heidegger’s concepts of anxiety (Angst) and mortality draw on Kierkegaard and are indebted to the way in which the latter lays out the importance of our subjective relation to truth, our existence in the face of death, the temporality of existence, and the importance of passionate affirmation of one’s individual being-in-the-world.
 Hölderlin and Nietzsche
|This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.|
Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Nietzsche were both important influences on Heidegger, and many of his lecture courses were devoted to one or the other, especially in the 1930s and 1940s. The lectures on Nietzsche focused on fragments posthumously published under the title The Will to Power, rather than on Nietzsche’s published works. Heidegger read The Will to Power as the culminating expression of Western metaphysics, and the lectures are a kind of dialogue between the two thinkers.
This is also the case for the lecture courses devoted to the poetry of Friedrich Hölderlin, which became an increasingly central focus of Heidegger’s work and thought. Heidegger grants to Hölderlin a singular place within the history of being and the history of Germany, as a herald whose thought is yet to be “heard” in Germany or the West. Many of Heidegger’s works from the 1930s onwards include meditations on lines from Hölderlin’s poetry, and several of the lecture courses are devoted to the reading of a single poem (see, for example, Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”).
 Heidegger and Eastern thought
Some writers on Heidegger’s work see possibilities within it for dialogue with traditions of thought outside of Western philosophy, particularly East Asian thinking. Despite perceived differences between Eastern and Western philosophy, some of Heidegger’s later work, particularly “A Dialogue on Language between a Japanese and an Inquirer”, does show an interest in initiating such a dialogue. Heidegger himself had contact with a number of leading Japanese intellectuals, including members of the Kyoto School, notably Hajime Tanabe and Kuki Shūzō. It has also been claimed that a number of elements within Heidegger’s thought bear a close parallel to Eastern philosophical ideas, particularly Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Paul Hsao records Chang Chung-Yuan saying that “Heidegger is the only Western Philosopher who not only intellectually understands but has intuitively grasped Taoist thought.” Some authors see great influence of Japanese scholars in Heidegger’s work, although this influence is not acknowledged by the author.
Some scholars interested in the relationships between Western philosophy and the history of ideas in Islam and Arabic philosophical medieval sources may have been influenced by Heidegger’s work, including recent studies by Nader El-Bizri. It is claimed the works of counter-enlightenment philosophers such as Heidegger, along with Friedrich Nietzsche and Joseph de Maistre, influenced Iran’s Shia Islamists, notably Ali Shariati, in constructing the ideological foundations of the Iranian Revolution and modern political Islam.
 Heidegger and Nazism
 The rectorate
Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Heidegger was elected rector of the University of Freiburg on April 21, 1933, and assumed the position the following day. On May 1 he joined the Nazi Party.
Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on “Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität” (“The Self-assertion of the German University”) on May 27. Heidegger claimed that: “The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer.”
His tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties from the outset. Some National Socialist education officials viewed him as a rival, while others saw his efforts as comical. Some of Heidegger’s fellow National Socialists also ridiculed his philosophical writings as gibberish. He finally offered his resignation on April 23, 1934, and it was accepted on April 27. Heidegger remained a member of both the academic faculty and of the Nazi Party until the end of the war.
Philosophical historian Hans Sluga wrote:
“Though as rector he prevented students from displaying an anti-Semitic poster at the entrance to the university and from holding a book burning, he kept in close contact with the Nazi student leaders and clearly signaled to them his sympathy with their activism.”
In 1945 Heidegger wrote of his term as rector, giving the writing to his son Hermann; it was published in 1983:
“The rectorate was an attempt to see something in the movement that had come to power, beyond all its failings and crudeness, that was much more far-reaching and that could perhaps one day bring a concentration on the Germans’ Western historical essence. It will in no way be denied that at the time I believed in such possibilities and for that reason renounced the actual vocation of thinking in favor of being effective in an official capacity. In no way will what was caused by my own inadequacy in office be played down. But these points of view do not capture what is essential and what moved me to accept the rectorate.”"
 Treatment of Husserl
Beginning in 1917, German-Jewish philosopher Edmund Husserl championed Heidegger’s work, and helped him secure the retiring Husserl’s chair in Philosophy at the University of Freiburg.
On April 6, 1933, the Reichskommissar of Baden Province, Robert Wagner, suspended all Jewish government employees, including present and retired faculty at the University of Freiburg. Heidegger’s predecessor as Rector formally notified Husserl of his “enforced leave of absence” on April 14, 1933.
Heidegger became Rector of the University of Freiburg on April 22, 1933. The following week the national Reich law of April 28, 1933, replaced Reichskommissar Wagner’s decree. The Reich law required the firing of Jewish professors from German universities, including those, such as Husserl, who had converted to Christianity. The termination of the retired professor Husserl’s academic privileges thus did not involve any specific action on Heidegger’s part.
Heidegger had by then broken off contact with Husserl, other than through intermediaries. Heidegger later claimed that his relationship with Husserl had already become strained after Husserl publicly “settled accounts” with Heidegger and Max Scheler in the early 1930s.
Heidegger did not attend his former mentor’s cremation in 1938. In 1941, under pressure from publisher Max Niemeyer, Heidegger agreed to remove the dedication to Husserl from Being and Time (restored in post-war editions).
Heidegger’s behavior towards Husserl has evoked controversy. Hannah Arendt initially suggested that Heidegger’s behavior precipitated Husserl’s death. She called Heidegger a “potential murderer.” However, she later recanted her accusation.
 Post-rectorate period
After the failure of Heidegger’s rectorship, he withdrew from most political activity, without canceling his membership in the NSDAP (Nazi Party). Nevertheless, references to National Socialism continued to appear in his work.
The most controversial such reference occurred during a 1935 lecture which was published in 1953 as part of the book Introduction to Metaphysics. In the published version, Heidegger refers to the “inner truth and greatness” of the National Socialist movement (die innere Wahrheit und Größe dieser Bewegung), but he then adds a qualifying statement in parentheses: “namely, the confrontation of planetary technology and modern humanity” (nämlich die Begegnung der planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des neuzeitlichen Menschen). However, it subsequently transpired that this qualification had not been made during the original lecture, although Heidegger claimed that it had been. This has led scholars to argue that Heidegger still supported the Nazi party in 1935 but that he did not want to admit this after the war, and so he attempted to silently correct his earlier statement.
In private notes written in 1939, Heidegger took a strongly critical view of Hitler’s ideology, however in public lectures he seems to have continued to make ambiguous comments which, if they expressed criticism of the regime, did so only in the context of praising its ideals. For instance, in a 1942 lecture, published posthumously, Heidegger said of recent German classics scholarship: “In the majority of ‘research results,’ the Greeks appear as pure National Socialists. This overenthusiasm on the part of academics seems not even to notice that with such “results” it does National Socialism and its historical uniqueness no service at all, not that it needs this anyhow.
An important witness to Heidegger’s continued allegiance to National Socialism during the post-rectorship period is his former student Karl Löwith, who met Heidegger in 1936 while Heidegger was visiting Rome. In an account set down in 1940 (though not intended for publication), Löwith recalled that Heidegger wore a swastika pin to their meeting, though Heidegger knew that Löwith was Jewish. Löwith also recalled that Heidegger “left no doubt about his faith in Hitler”, and stated that his support for National Socialism was in agreement with the essence of his philosophy.
 Post-war period
After the end of World War II, Heidegger was summoned to appear at a denazification hearing. Heidegger’s former lover Hannah Arendt spoke on his behalf at this hearing, while Jaspers spoke against him. The result of the hearings was that Heidegger was forbidden to teach between 1945 and 1951. One consequence of this teaching ban was that Heidegger began to engage far more in the French philosophical scene.
In his postwar thinking, Heidegger distanced himself from Nazism, but his critical comments about Nazism seem “scandalous” to some since they tend to equate the Nazi war atrocities with other inhumane practices related to rationalisation and industrialisation, including the treatment of animals by factory farming. For instance in a lecture delivered at Bremen in 1949, Heidegger said: “Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, the same thing in its essence as the production of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same thing as blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs.”
In 1967 Heidegger met with the Jewish poet Paul Celan, a concentration camp survivor. Celan visited Heidegger at his country retreat and wrote an enigmatic poem about the meeting, which some interpret as Celan’s wish for Heidegger to apologize for his behavior during the Nazi era.
 The Der Spiegel interview
On September 23, 1966, Heidegger was interviewed by Rudolf Augstein and Georg Wolff for Der Spiegel magazine, in which he agreed to discuss his political past provided that the interview be published posthumously (it was published on May 31, 1976). In the interview, Heidegger defended his entanglement with National Socialism in two ways: first, he argued that there was no alternative, saying that he was trying to save the university (and science in general) from being politicized and thus had to compromise with the Nazi administration. Second, he admitted that he saw an “awakening” (“Aufbruch“) which might help to find a “new national and social approach,” but said that he changed his mind about this in 1934, largely prompted by the violence of the Night of the Long Knives.
In his interview Heidegger defended as double-speak his 1935 lecture describing the “inner truth and greatness of this movement.” He affirmed that Nazi informants who observed his lectures would understand that by “movement” he meant National Socialism. However, Heidegger asserted that his dedicated students would know this statement was no eulogy for the NSDAP. Rather, he meant it as he expressed it in the parenthetical clarification later added to Introduction to Metaphysics (1953), namely, “the confrontation of planetary technology and modern humanity.”
The Löwith account from 1936 has been cited to contradict the account given in the Der Spiegel interview in two ways: that there he did not make any decisive break with National Socialism in 1934, and that Heidegger was willing to entertain more profound relations between his philosophy and political involvement. The Der Spiegel interviewers did not bring up Heidegger’s 1949 quotation comparing the industrialization of agriculture to the extermination camps. In fact, the interviewers were not in possession of much of the evidence now known for Heidegger’s Nazi sympathies.
 Influence and reception in France
Heidegger was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, and his ideas have penetrated into many areas, but in France there is a very long and particular history of reading and interpreting his work.
 Existentialism and pre-war influence
Heidegger’s influence on French philosophy began in the 1930s, when Being and Time, “What is Metaphysics?” and other Heideggerian texts were read by Jean-Paul Sartre and other existentialists, as well as by thinkers such as Emmanuel Levinas, Alexandre Kojève and Georges Bataille. Because Heidegger’s discussion of ontology (the study of being) is rooted in an analysis of the mode of existence of individual human beings (Da-sein, or there-being), his work has often been associated with existentialism. The influence of Heidegger on Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is marked, but Heidegger felt that Sartre had misread his work, as he argued in later texts such as the “Letter on ‘Humanism’.” In that text, intended for a French audience, Heidegger explained this misreading in the following terms:
Sartre’s key proposition about the priority of existentia over essentia [that is, Sartre's statement that "existence precedes essence"] does, however, justify using the name “existentialism” as an appropriate title for a philosophy of this sort. But the basic tenet of “existentialism” has nothing at all in common with the statement from Being and Time [that "the 'essence' of Dasein lies in its existence"]—apart from the fact that in Being and Time no statement about the relation of essentia and existentia can yet be expressed, since there it is still a question of preparing something precursory.
“Letter on ‘Humanism’” is often seen as a direct response to Sartre’s 1945 lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Aside from merely disputing readings of his own work, however, in “Letter on ‘Humanism,’” Heidegger asserts that “Every humanism is either grounded in a metaphysics or is itself made to be the ground of one.” Heidegger’s largest issue with Sartre’s existential humanism is that, while it does make a humanistic ‘move’ in privileging existence over essence, “the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement.” From this point onward in his thought, Heidegger attempted to think beyond metaphysics to a place where the articulation of the fundamental questions of ontology were fundamentally possible: only from this point can we restore (that is, re-give [redonner]) any possible meaning to the word “humanism”.
 Post-war forays into France
|This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.|
After the war, Heidegger was banned from university teaching for a period on account of his activities as Rector of Freiburg University. He developed a number of contacts in France, where his work continued to be taught, and a number of French students visited him at Todtnauberg (see, for example, Jean-François Lyotard’s brief account in Heidegger and “the Jews”, which discusses a Franco-German conference held in Freiburg in 1947, one step toward bringing together French and German students). Heidegger subsequently made several visits to France, and made efforts to keep abreast of developments in French philosophy by way of correspondence with Jean Beaufret, an early French translator of Heidegger, and with Lucien Braun.
 Derrida and deconstruction
Deconstruction came to Heidegger’s attention in 1967 by way of Lucien Braun’s recommendation of Jacques Derrida’s work (Hans-Georg Gadamer was present at an initial discussion and indicated to Heidegger that Derrida’s work came to his attention by way of an assistant). Heidegger expressed interest in meeting Derrida personally after the latter sent him some of his work. There was discussion of a meeting in 1972, but this failed to take place. Heidegger’s interest in Derrida is said by Braun to have been considerable (as is evident in two letters, of September 29, 1967 and May 16, 1972, from Heidegger to Braun). Braun also brought to Heidegger’s attention the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault’s relation to Heidegger is a matter of considerable difficulty; Foucault acknowledged Heidegger as a philosopher whom he read but never wrote about. (For more on this see Penser à Strasbourg, Jacques Derrida, et al., which includes reproductions of both letters and an account by Braun, “À mi-chemin entre Heidegger et Derrida”).
Jacques Derrida made emphatic efforts to displace the understanding of Heidegger’s work that had been prevalent in France from the period of the ban against Heidegger teaching in German universities, which amounted to an almost wholesale rejection of the influence of Jean-Paul Sartre and existentialist terms. In Derrida’s view, deconstruction is a tradition inherited via Heidegger (the French term “déconstruction” is a term coined to translate Heidegger’s use of the words “Destruktion”—literally “destruction”—and “Abbau”—more literally “de-building”). According to Derrida, Sartre’s interpretation of Dasein and other key Heideggerian concerns is overly psychologistic, anthropocentric, and misses the historicality central to Dasein in Being and Time. Because of Derrida’s vehement attempts to “rescue” Heidegger from his existentialist interpreters (and also from Heidegger’s “orthodox” followers), Derrida has at times been represented as a “French Heidegger”, to the extent that he, his colleagues, and his former students are made to go proxy for Heidegger’s worst (political) mistakes, despite ample evidence that the reception of Heidegger’s work by later practitioners of deconstruction is anything but doctrinaire.
 The Farías debate
Derrida, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Jean-François Lyotard, among others, all engaged in debate and disagreement about the relation between Heidegger’s philosophy and his Nazi politics. These debates included the question of whether it was possible to do without Heidegger’s philosophy, a position which Derrida in particular rejected. Forums where these debates took place include the proceedings of the first conference dedicated to Derrida’s work, published as “Les Fins de l’homme à partir du travail de Jacques Derrida: colloque de Cerisy, 23 juillet-2 août 1980″, Derrida’s “Feu la cendre/cio’ che resta del fuoco”, and the studies on Paul Celan by Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida which shortly preceded the detailed studies of Heidegger’s politics published in and after 1987.
When in 1987 Víctor Farías published his book Heidegger et le nazisme, this debate was taken up by many others, some of whom were inclined to disparage so-called “deconstructionists” for their association with Heidegger’s philosophy. Derrida and others not only continued to defend the importance of reading Heidegger, but attacked Farías on the grounds of poor scholarship and for what they saw as the sensationalism of his approach. Not all scholars agreed with this negative assessment: Richard Rorty, for example, declared that “[Farias'] book includes more concrete information relevant to Heidegger’s relations with the Nazis than anything else available, and it is an excellent antidote to the evasive apologetics that are still being published.”
 Bernard Stiegler
More recently, Heidegger’s thought has considerably influenced the work of the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler. This is evident even from the title of Stiegler’s multi-volume magnum opus, La technique et le temps (volume one translated into English as Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus). Stiegler offers an original reading of Heidegger, arguing that there can be no access to “originary temporality” other than via material, that is, technical, supports, and that Heidegger recognised this in the form of his account of world historicality, yet in the end suppressed that fact. Stiegler understands the existential analytic of Being and Time as an account of psychic individuation, and his later “history of being” as an account of collective individuation. He understands many of the problems of Heidegger’s philosophy and politics as the consequence of Heidegger’s inability to integrate the two.
 Giorgio Agamben
Heidegger’s influence upon 20th century continental philosophy is unquestioned and has produced a variety of critical responses.
 Early criticisms
The content of Being and Time, according to Husserl, claimed to deal with ontology, but from Husserl’s perspective only did so in the first few pages of the book. Having nothing further to contribute to an ontology independent of human existence, Heidegger changed the topic to Dasein. Whereas Heidegger argued that the question of human existence is central to the pursuit of the question of being, Husserl criticized this as reducing phenomenology to “philosophical anthropology” and offering an abstract and incorrect portrait of the human being.
The Neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer and Heidegger engaged in an influential debate located in Davos in 1929, concerning the significance of Kantian notions of freedom and rationality. Whereas Cassirer defended the role of rationality in Kant, Heidegger argued for the priority of the imagination. Dilthey’s student Georg Misch wrote the first extended critical appropriation of Heidegger in Lebensphilosophie und Phänomenologie. Eine Auseinandersetzung der Diltheyschen Richtung mit Heidegger und Husserl, Leipzig 1930 (3. ed. Stuttgart 1964).
 Left-Hegelianism and critical theory
Hegel-influenced Marxist thinkers, especially György Lukács and the Frankfurt School, associated the style and content of Heidegger’s thought with German irrationalism and criticized its political implications.
Initially members of the Frankfurt School were positively disposed to Heidegger, becoming more critical at the beginning of the 1930s. Heidegger’s student Herbert Marcuse became associated with the Frankfurt School. Initially striving for a synthesis between Hegelian-Marxism and Heidegger’s phenomenology, Marcuse later rejected Heidegger’s thought for its “false concreteness” and “revolutionary conservativism.” Theodor Adorno wrote an extended critique of the ideological character of Heidegger’s early and later use of language in the Jargon of Authenticity. Contemporary social theorists associated with the Frankfurt School have remained largely critical of Heidegger’s works and influence. In particular, Jürgen Habermas admonishes the influence of Heidegger on recent French philosophy in his polemic against “postmodernism” in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985). However, recent work by philosopher and critical theorist Nikolas Kompridis tries to show that Heidegger’s insights into world disclosure are badly misunderstood and mishandled by Habermas, and are of vital importance for critical theory, offering an important way of renewing that tradition.
 Reception by Analytic and Anglo-American philosophy
Criticism of Heidegger’s philosophy has also come from analytic philosophy, beginning with logical positivism. In “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language” (1932), Rudolf Carnap accused Heidegger of offering an “illusory” ontology, criticizing him for committing the fallacy of reification and for wrongly dismissing the logical treatment of language which, according to Carnap, can only lead to writing “nonsensical pseudo-propositions.”
A strong critic of Heidegger’s philosophy was the British logical positivist A. J. Ayer. In Ayer’s view, Heidegger proposed vast, overarching theories regarding existence, which are completely unverifiable through empirical demonstration and logical analysis. For Ayer, this sort of philosophy was a poisonous strain in modern thought. He considered Heidegger to be the worst example of such philosophy, which Ayer believed to be entirely useless.
Bertrand Russell commented, expressing the sentiments of many mid-20th-century analytic philosophers, that:
Highly eccentric in its terminology, his philosophy is extremely obscure. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic.
Roger Scruton stated that: “His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it”.
The analytic tradition values clarity of expression. Heidegger, however, has on occasion appeared to take an opposing view, stating for example that “those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize ‘facts’ never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.” Apart from the charge of obscurantism, other analytic philosophers considered the actual content of Heidegger’s work to be either faulty and meaningless, vapid or uninteresting.
Not all analytic philosophers, however, have been as hostile. Gilbert Ryle wrote a critical yet positive review of Being and Time. Ludwig Wittgenstein made a remark recorded by Friedrich Waismann: “To be sure, I can imagine what Heidegger means by being and anxiety” which has been construed by some commentators[who?] as sympathetic to Heidegger’s philosophical approach. These positive and negative analytic evaluations have been collected in Michael Murray (ed.), Heidegger and Modern Philosophy: Critical Essays (Yale University Press, 1978). Heidegger’s reputation within English-language philosophy has slightly improved in philosophical terms in some part through the efforts of Hubert Dreyfus, Richard Rorty, and a recent generation of analytically oriented phenomenology scholars. Pragmatist Rorty claimed that Heidegger’s approach to philosophy in the first half of his career has much in common with that of the latter-day Ludwig Wittgenstein, a significant figure in analytic philosophy. Nevertheless, Rorty asserted that what Heidegger had constructed in his writings was a myth of being rather than an account of it.
 Contemporary European reception
Even though Heidegger is considered by many observers to be the most influential philosopher of the 20th century in continental philosophy, aspects of his work have been criticised by those who nevertheless acknowledge this influence, such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jacques Derrida. Some questions raised about Heidegger’s philosophy include the priority of ontology, the status of animals, the nature of the religious, Heidegger’s supposed neglect of ethics (Emmanuel Levinas), the body (Maurice Merleau-Ponty), or sexual difference (Luce Irigaray).
Emmanuel Levinas was deeply influenced by Heidegger yet became one of his fiercest critics, contrasting the infinity of the good beyond being with the immanence and totality of ontology. Levinas also condemned Heidegger’s involvement with National Socialism, stating “One can forgive many Germans, but there are some Germans it is difficult to forgive. It is difficult to forgive Heidegger.”
- Being in the World draws on Heidegger’s work to explore what it means to be human in a technological age. A number of Heidegger scholars are interviewed, including Hubert Dreyfus, Mark Wrathall, Albert Borgmann, John Haugeland, and Taylor Carman.
- The Ister (2004) is a film based on Heidegger’s 1942 lecture course on Friedrich Hölderlin, and features Jean-Luc Nancy, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Bernard Stiegler, and Hans-Jürgen Syberberg.
- The film director Terrence Malick translated Heidegger’s 1929 essay “Vom Wesen des Grundes” into English. It was published under the title The Essence of Reasons (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969, bilingual edition). It is also frequently said of Malick that his cinema has Heideggerian sensibilities. See for instance: Marc Furstenau and Leslie MacAvoy, “Terrence Malick’s Heideggerian Cinema: War and the Question of Being in The Thin Red Line” In The cinema of Terrence Malick: Poetic visions of America, 2nd ed. Edited by Hanna Patterson (London: Wallflower Press 2007): 179-91. See also: Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979): XV.
- The 2006 experimental short Die Entnazifizierung des MH by James T. Hong imagines Heidegger’s denazification proceedings.
- In the 1981 film My Dinner with Andre, Heidegger’s theory of “experiencing one’s being to the fullest is like experiencing the decay of that being towards one’s death, as a part of your experience” is quoted by the actor Wallace Shawn, who plays himself.
Heidegger’s collected works are published by Vittorio Klostermann. The Gesamtausgabe was begun during Heidegger’s lifetime. He defined the order of publication and dictated that the principle of editing should be “ways not works.” Publication has not yet been completed.
The contents are listed here: Heidegger Gesamtausgabe.
 Selected works
A complete list of English translations of Heidegger’s work is available here.
|Year||Original German||English Translation|
|1927||Sein und Zeit, Gesamtausgabe Volume 2||Being and Time, trans. by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (London: SCM Press, 1962); re-translated by Joan Stambaugh (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996)|
|1929||Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, Gesamtausgabe Volume 3||Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, trans. by Richard Taft (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990)|
|1935||Einführung in die Metaphysik (1935, published 1953), Gesamtausgabe Volume 40||Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. by Gregory Fried and Richard Polt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000)|
|1936–8||Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) (1936–1938, published 1989), Gesamtausgabe Volume 65||Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), trans. by Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999)|
|1942||Hölderlins Hymne »Der Ister« (1942, published 1984), Gesamtausgabe Volume 53||Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”, trans. by William McNeill and Julia Davis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996)|
|1949||“Die Frage nach der Technik”, in Gesamtausgabe Volume 7||“The Question Concerning Technology“, in Heidegger, Martin, Basic Writings: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, ed. David Farrell Krell (New York: Harper Collins, 1993)|
|1950||Holzwege, Gesamtausgabe Volume 5. This collection includes “Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes” (1935–1936)||Off the Beaten Track. This collection includes “The Origin of the Work of Art“|
|1955–56||Der Satz vom Grund, Gesamtausgabe Volume 10||The Principle of Reason, trans. Reginald Lilly (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1991)|
|1955–57||Identität und Differenz, Gesamtausgabe Volume 11||Identity and Difference, trans. by Joan Stambaugh (New York: Harper & Row, 1969)|
|1959||Gelassenheit, in Gesamtausgabe Volume 16||Discourse On Thinking|
|1959||Unterwegs zur Sprache, Gesamtausgabe Volume 12||On the Way To Language, published without the essay “Die Sprache” (“Language”) by arrangement with Heidegger|
|Notable teachers||Notable students|
 Further reading
||This article’s further reading may not follow Wikipedia’s content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (August 2010)|
 On Being and Time
- William Blattner, Heidegger’s Temporal Idealism
- Taylor Carman, Heidegger’s Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in “Being and Time”
- Hubert Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I
- Graham Harman, Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects
- Michael Gelven, A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Revised Edition
- E.F. Kaelin, “Heidegger’s Being & Time: A Reading for Readers”
- Magda King, A Guide to Heidegger’s Being and Time
- Theodore Kisiel, The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being and Time
- Stephen Mulhall, Heidegger and Being and Time
- James Luchte, Heidegger’s Early Philosophy: The Phenomenology of Ecstatic Temporality
- Mark Wrathall, How to Read Heidegger
- Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, ed. by Joseph Margolis and Tom Rockmore
- Hugo Ott, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life
- Otto Poeggeler, Martin Heidegger’s Path of Thinking, trans. by D. Magurshak and S. Barber, Humanities Press, 1987.
- Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil
- John van Buren, The Young Heidegger: Rumor of the Hidden King
 Politics and National Socialism
- Pierre Bourdieu, The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger
- Miguel de Beistegui, Heidegger and the Political: Dystopias
- Jacques Derrida, Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question
- Victor Farías, Heidegger and Nazism, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1989.
- Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger, l’introduction du nazisme dans la philosophie : autour des séminaires inédits de 1933–1935, Paris, Albin Michel, 2005. ISBN 2-226-14252-5 in French language
- Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger. The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935, Translated by Michael B. Smith, Foreword by Tom Rockmore, Yale University Press, 2009, 436 p. Foreword Award: Book of the year 2009 for Philosophy.
- Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert & Otto Pöggeler (eds.), Heidegger und die praktische Philosophie, Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp, 1989. in German language
- Dominique Janicaud, The Shadow of That Thought
- Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, “Transcendence Ends in Politics”, in Typography: Mimesis, Philosophy, Politics
- Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Heidegger, Art, and Politics: The Fiction of the Political
- George Leaman, Heidegger im Kontext: Gesamtüberblick zum NS-Engagement der Universitätsphilosophen, Argument Verlag, Hamburg, 1993. ISBN 3-88619-205-9
- Karl Löwith, Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism
- Karl Löwith Heidegger’s Existentialism
- Jean-François Lyotard, Heidegger and “the jews”
- Günther Neske & Emil Kettering (eds.), Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers
- Political Texts – Rectoral Addresses
- Tom Rockmore and Joseph Margolis (ed.), The Heidegger Case
- Daniel Ross, Heidegger and the Question of the Political
- Hans Sluga, Heidegger’s Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany
- Iain Thomson, Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education
- Dana Villa, Arendt and Heidegger: the Fate of the Political
- Richard Wolin (ed.), The Heidegger Controversy ISBN 0-262-23166-2.
- Julian Young, Heidegger philosophy Nazism
 Other secondary literature
- Robert Bernasconi, Heidegger in Question: The Art of Existing
- Lee Braver. A Thing of This World: a History of Continental Anti-Realism. Northwestern University Press: 2007.
- Walter A. Brogan, Heidegger and Aristotle: The Twofoldness of Being
- Richard Capobianco, Engaging Heidegger with a Foreword by William J. Richardson. University of Toronto Press, 2010.
- Maxence Caron, Heidegger – Pensée de l’être et origine de la subjectivité, 1760 pages, first and only book on Heidegger awarded by the Académie française.
- Gabriel Cercel / Cristian Ciocan (eds), The Early Heidegger (Studia Phaenomenologica I, 3–4), Bucharest: Humanitas, 2001, 506 p., including letters by Heidegger and Pöggeler, and articles by Walter Biemel, Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, Theodore Kisiel, Marion Heinz, Alfred Denker
- Steven Galt Crowell, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths toward Transcendental Phenomenology
- Walter A. Davis. Inwardness and Existence: Subjectivity in/and Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, and Freud. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
- Jacques Derrida, “Ousia and Gramme: Note on a Note from Being and Time“, in Margins of Philosophy
- Hubert L. Dreyfus & Mark A. Wrathall, A Companion to Heidegger (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007)
- Paul Edwards, Heidegger’s Confusions
- Christopher Fynsk, Heidegger: Thought and Historicity
- Graham Harman, Heidegger Explained
- Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Poetry as Experience
- Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Heidegger and the Politics of Poetry
- S. J. McGrath, Heidegger. A (Very) Critical Introduction
- William McNeill, The Glance of the Eye: Heidegger, Aristotle, and the Ends of Theory
- William McNeill, The Time of Life: Heidegger and Ethos
- Jean-Luc Nancy, “The Decision of Existence”, in The Birth to Presence
- Herman Philipse, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation
- Richard Polt, Heidegger: An Introduction
- François Raffoul, Heidegger and the Subject
- Patricia Altenbernd Johnson, On Heidegger (Wadsworth Philosophers Series), Wadsworth Publishing, 1999
- François Raffoul & David Pettigrew (ed), Heidegger and Practical Philosophy
- William J. Richardson, Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought.
- John Sallis, Echoes: After Heidegger
- John Sallis (ed), Reading Heidegger: Commemorations, including articles by Robert Bernasconi, Jacques Derrida, Rodolphe Gasché, and John Sallis, among others.
- Reiner Schürmann, Heidegger on Being and Acting: From Principles to Anarchy
- Tony See, Community without Identity: The Ontology and Politics of Heidegger
- Adam Sharr, Heidegger’s Hut
- Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus
- Leo Strauss, “An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism,” in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism (University of Chicago: 1989).
- Andrzej Warminski, Readings in Interpretation: Hölderlin, Hegel, Heidegger
- Julian Young, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art
- Julian Young, Heidegger’s Later Philosophy
- Bastian Zimmermann, Die Offenbarung des Unverfügbaren und die Würde des Fragens. Ethische Dimensionen der Philosophie Martin Heideggers (London: 2010) ISBN 978-1-84790-037-1
 Reception in France
- Jean Beaufret, Dialogue avec Heidegger, 4 vols.
- Dominique Janicaud, Heidegger en France, 2 vols.
- Ethan Kleinberg, Generation Existential: Heidegger’s Philosophy in France, 1927–1961
- David Pettigrew and François Raffoul (eds.), French Interpretations of Heidegger : An Exceptional Reception, Albany : SUNY Press, 2006.
 Influence on Japanese philosophy
- Mayeda, Graham. 2006. Time, space and ethics in the philosophy of Watsuji Tetsurō, Kuki Shūzō, and Martin Heidegger (New York: Routledge, 2006). ISBN 0-415-97673-1 (alk. paper).
 Influence on Asian philosophy
- Parkes, Graham. 1987. Heidegger and Asian Thought. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-1064-3.
 See also
- World disclosure
- Heideggerian terminology
- Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”
- Heidegger Gesamtausgabe
- List of Nazi ideologues
- Heidegger and Nazism
- Hans Jonas
- Rainer Maria Rilke
- Ernst Cassirer
- ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/erfurt/#4
- ^ http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan.bak/EHtrans/2-intro.pdf, pages 6-7
- ^ www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/grondinj/textes_html/Being.doc
- ^ Lackey, Douglas. 1999. “What Are the Modern Classics? The Baruch Poll of Great Philosophy in the Twentieth Century”. Philosophical Forum. 30 (4): 329-46
- ^ Dreyfus, Hubert. “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian”.
- ^ For critical readings of the interview (published in 1966 as “Only a God Can Save Us”, Der Spiegel), see the “Special Feature on Heidegger and Nazism” in Critical Inquiry 15:2 (Winter 1989), particularly the contributions by Jürgen Habermas and Blanchot. The issue includes partial translations of Derrida’s Of Spirit and Lacoue-Labarthe’s Of Spirit and Heidegger, Art, and Politics: the Fiction of the Political.
- ^ Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, pp. 25–26.
- ^ http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/#SH8a
- ^ a b Martin Heidegger, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning) (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999), p. 307.
- ^ Source: Hannah Arendt / Martin Heidegger by Elzbieta Ettinger, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995, page 10
- ^ Hannah Arendt, Martin Heidegger At 80, New York Review of Books, 17/6, (Oct. 21, 1971), 50–54; repr. in Heidegger and Modern Philosophy ed. M. Murray (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 293–303
- ^ “Martin Heidegger, Emmanuel Levinas\, and the Politics of Dwelling” by David J. Gauthier, Ph.D dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2004, page 156
- ^ Karl Löwith, Mein Leben in Deutschland vor und nach 1933: ein Bericht (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1986), p. 57, translated by Paula Wissing as cited by Maurice Blanchot in “Thinking the Apocalypse: a Letter from Maurice Blanchot to Catherine David”, in Critical Inquiry 15:2, pp. 476–477.
- ^ “Emmanuel Faye,[in his “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,”] argues fascist and racist ideas are so woven into the fabric of Heidegger’s theories that they no longer deserve to be called philosophy. . . . Richard Wolin, the author of several books on Heidegger and a close reader of the Faye book, said he is not convinced Heidegger’s thought is as thoroughly tainted by Nazism as Mr. Faye argues. Nonetheless he recognizes how far Heidegger’s ideas have spilled into the larger culture.” An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi Deserve a Place Among Philosophers? by Patricia Cohen. New York Times. Published: November 8, 2009. 
- ^ Hermann Philipse, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being p. 173, Notes to Chapter One, Martin Heidegger, Supplements, trans. John Van Buren p. 183.
- ^ Die Lehre vom Urteil im Psychologismus. Ein kritisch-theoretischer Beitrag zur Logik (1914). Source: Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert, “Martin Heidegger”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, XIV, 1982, p. 562
- ^ Note, however, that it was discovered later that one of the two main sources used by Heidegger was not by Scotus, but by Thomas of Erfurt. Thus Heidegger’s 1916 doctoral thesis, Die Kategorien- und Bedeutungslehre des Duns Scotus, should have been entitled, Die Kategorienlehre des Duns Scotus und die Bedeutungslehre des Thomas von Erfurt. Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Gethmann-Siefert, 1982, p. 563
- ^ Charles Bambach, Heidegger’s Roots (Cornell University Press, 2003, page 82)
- ^ Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism (Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 3, page 11).
- ^ Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism (Cambridge University Press, 1997, page 3)
- ^ Provisional ruling October 5, 1946; final ruling December 28, 1946; Hugo Ott, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life, (Harper Collins, 1993, page 348)
- ^ Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil (Harvard University Press, 1998, page 373)
- ^ Heidegger, Martin; Heidegger, Gertrud (September 2005), Mein liebes Seelchen! Briefe von Martin Heidegger an seine Frau Elfride: 1915–1970, Munich: DVA, ISBN 978-3-421-05849-2
- ^ Martin Heidegger / Elisabeth Blochmann. Briefwechsel 1918–1969. Joachim W. Storck, ed. Marbach am Neckar: Deutsches Literatur-Archiv, 1989, 2nd edn. 1990.
- ^ Being There, a Spring 2007 article on Heidegger’s vacation home for Cabinet magazine.
- ^ For a study on Heidegger’s reading of the Sophist and his less central interest in Plato’s Timaeus and its conception of space qua khôra: see: Nader El-Bizri, “On Kai khôra: Situating Heidegger between the Sophist and the Timaeus“, Studia Phaenomenologica, Vol. IV, Issue 1–2 (2004), pp. 73–98. This study is also closely connected with an investigation of Heidegger’s later reflections on ‘dwelling’ as set in: Nader El-Bizri, ‘Being at Home Among Things: Heidegger’s Reflections on Dwelling’, Environment, Space, Place 3 (2011), pp. 47-71. Refer also to other aspects of this research under the section of ‘Heidegger and Eastern Thought’ in the main body of the text above
- ^ In everyday German, “Dasein” means “existence.” It is composed of “Da” (here/there) and “Sein” (being). Dasein is transformed in Heidegger’s usage from its everyday meaning to refer, rather, to that being that is there in its world, that is, the being for whom being matters. In later publications Heidegger writes the term in hyphenated form as Da-sein, thus emphasizing the distance from the word’s ordinary usage.
- ^ Jacques Derrida describes this in the following terms: “We can see then that Dasein, though not man, is nevertheless nothing other than man.” Jacques Derrida, “The Ends of Man”, Margins of Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 127.
- ^ Cf. Bernard Stiegler, “Technics of Decision: An Interview”, Angelaki 8 (2003), pp. 154–67, and cf. the discussion of Stiegler’s reading of Heidegger in the sub-section “Bernard Stiegler” below.
- ^ William J. RichardsonHeidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought (1963)
- ^ Wrathall, Mark: Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History, Cambridge University Press, 2011
- ^ http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=24212
- ^ Lyon, James K. Paul Celan and Martin Heidegger: an unresolved conversation, 1951-1970, pp.128-9
- ^ Philipse, Herman (1998) Heidegger’s philosophy of being: a critical interpretation, p.205
- ^ Heidegger (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought, translation and introduction by Albert Hofstadter, pp.xxv and 187-ff
- ^ See The Influence of Augustine on Heidegger: The Emergence of an Augustinian Phenomenology, ed. Craig J. N. de Paulo (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006.) and also Martin Heidegger’s Interpretations of Augustine: Sein und Zeit und Ewigkeit, ed. Frederick Van Fleteren (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.)
- ^ Heidegger, What is Called Thinking? (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 73.
- ^ Kelvin Knight, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).
- ^ Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Martin Heidegger’s One Path”, in Theodore Kisiel & John van Buren (eds.), Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), pp. 22–4.
- ^ In The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being and Time (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), Theodor Kisiel designates the first version of the project that culminates in Being and Time, “the Dilthey draft” (p. 313). David Farrell Krell comments in Daimon Life: Heidegger and Life-Philosophy (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992) that “Heidegger’s project sprouts (in part, but in good part) from the soil of Dilthey’s philosophy of factical-historical life” (p. 35).
- ^ Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Martin Heidegger—75 Years”, Heidegger’s Ways (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), p. 18.
- ^ Robert J. Dostal, “Time and Phenomenology in Husserl and Heidegger”, in Charles Guignon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 142.
- ^ Daniel O. Dahlstrom, “Heidegger’s Critique of Husserl”, in Theodore Kisiel & John van Buren (eds.), Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), p. 244.
- ^ Dreyfus, Hubert. Being-in-the-world: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991), Sec. Appendix.
- ^ Heidegger, “A Dialogue on Language between a Japanese and an Inquirer”, in On the Way to Language (New York: Harper & Row, 1971).
- ^ Heidegger’s hidden sources: East Asian influences on his work By Reinhard May, Graham Parkes
- ^ See for instance: Nader El-Bizri, The Phenomenological Quest between Avicenna and Heidegger (Binghamton, N.Y.: Global Publications SUNY, 2000); Nader El-Bizri, ‘Avicenna and Essentialism’, Review of Metaphysics 54 (2001), 753-778; Nader El-Bizri, ‘Being and Necessity: A Phenomenological Investigation of Avicenna’s Metaphysics and Cosmology’, in Islamic Philosophy and Occidental Phenomenology on the Perennial Issue of Microcosm and Macrocosm, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006), 243-261; Nader El-Bizri, ‘The Labyrinth of Philosophy in Islam’, Comparative Philosophy 1.2 (2010), 3-23; Nader El-Bizri, ‘Al-Sīnawiyya wa-naqd Hāydighir li-tārīkh al-mītāfīzīqā’, al-Maĥajja 21 (2010), 119-140
- ^ “Political Islam, Iran, and the Enlightenment: Philosophies of Hope and Despair”, Ali Mirsepassi. Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 0-521-74590-X, 9780521745901. p. 90
- ^ “Iran’s Islamists Influenced By Western Philosophers, NYU’s Mirsepassi Concludes in New Book”, New York University. January 11, 2011. Accessed February 15, 2011
- ^ Source: “German Men and Women!”, Freiburger Studentenzeitung,, November 10, 1933, as quoted in //Introducing Heidegger// by Jeff Collins et al., Icon Books, Thriplow, Cambridge, p.e 96
- ^ Hans Sluga, Heidegger’s Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany (Cambridge, Massachusetts, & London: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 149.
- ^ Heidegger, “The Rectorate 1933/34: Facts and Thoughts”, in Günther Neske & Emil Kettering (eds.), Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers (New York: Paragon House, 1990), p. 29.
- ^ Seyla Benhabib, The Reluctant Modernism Of Hannah Arendt (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, p. 120.)
- ^ Seyla Benhabib, The Personal is not the Political (October/November 1999 issue of Boston Review.)
- ^ Martin Heidegger, “Der Spiegel Interview”, in Günther Neske & Emil Kettering (eds.), Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers (New York: Paragon House, 1990), p. 48.
- ^ Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil (Cambridge, Mass., & London: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 253–8.
- ^ Elzbieta Ettinger,Hannah Arendt – Martin Heidegger, (New Haven, Conn., & London: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 37.
- ^ Jurgen Habermas, “Work and Weltanschauung: the Heidegger Controversy from a German Perspective”, Critical Inquiry 15 (1989), pp. 452–54. See also J. Habermas, “Martin Heidegger: on the publication of the lectures of 1935″, in R. Wolin, ed., The Heidegger Controversy (MIT Press, 1993). The controversial page of the 1935 manuscript is missing from the Heidegger Archives in Marbach; however, Habermas’s scholarship leaves little doubt about the original wording.
- ^ Martin Heidegger, Mindfulness (Continuum, 2006), section 47.
- ^ Heidegger, Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister” (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996), pp. 79–80.
- ^ Karl Löwith, “My last meeting with Heidegger in Rome”, in R. Wolin, The Heidegger Controversy (MIT Press, 1993).
- ^ Dominique Janicaud, Heidegger en France vol. 1 (Paris: Albin Michel, 2001).
- ^ Thomas Sheehan, “Heidegger and the Nazis”, a review of Victor Farias’ Heidegger et le nazisme, in The New York Review of Books, Vol. XXXV, n°10, June 16, 1988, pp.38-47
- ^ Anderson, Mark M. (1991-04-01). “The “Impossibility of Poetry”: Celan and Heidegger in France”. New German Critique (53): 3–18. doi:10.2307/488241. ISSN 0094-033X. http://www.jstor.org/stable/488241. Retrieved 2011-12-13.
- ^ For critical readings of the interview (published in 1966 as “Only a God Can Save Us,” Der Spiegel), see the “Special Feature on Heidegger and Nazism” in Critical Inquiry 15:2 (Winter 1989), particularly the contributions by Jürgen Habermas and Blanchot. The issue includes partial translations of Derrida’s Of Spirit and Lacoue-Labarthe’s Of Spirit and Heidegger, Art, and Politics: the Fiction of the Political.
- ^ On the history of the French translation of Heidegger’s “What is Metaphysics?”, and on its importance to the French intellectual scene, cf. Denis Hollier, “Plenty of Nothing”, in Hollier (ed.), A New History of French Literature (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 894–900.
- ^ Heidegger, “Letter on ‘Humanism’”, Pathmarks (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 250–1.
- ^ Richard Rorty, review of Heidegger and Nazism in the New Republic, quoted on the Temple University Press promotional page for Heidegger and Nazism
- ^ Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), part 2.
- ^ Durantaye, Leland de la. (2009). Giorgio Agamben. A Critical Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- ^ See Edmund Husserl, Psychological and transcendental phenomenology and the confrontation with Heidegger (1927–1931) (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997).
- ^ Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future MIT Press, 2006.
- ^ Nikolas Kompridis, “Disclosing Possibility: The Past and Future of Critical Theory”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Volume 13, Issue September 3, 2005 , pages 325 – 351.
- ^ Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West (New York: Crescent Books, 1989), p. 303.
- ^ Jeff Collins, Introducing Heidegger (Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books, 1998), p. 7.
- ^ Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle: Conversations Recorded by Friedrich Waismann, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1979, p.68
- ^ Jeff Collins, Introducing Heidegger (Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books, 1998), p. 170.
- ^ Emmanuel Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings (Indiana University Press, 1990), p. xxv, translated by Annette Aronowicz
- ^ http://www.theister.com/
- ^ http://www.zukunftsmusik.com/zm/mh.html
|Find more about Martin Heidegger on Wikipedia’s sister projects:|
|Definitions and translations from Wiktionary|
|Images and media from Commons|
|Learning resources from Wikiversity|
|News stories from Wikinews|
|Quotations from Wikiquote|
|Source texts from Wikisource|
|Textbooks from Wikibooks|
 General information
- German Heidegger Society (German)
- Der Spiegel Interview
- Timeline of German Philosophers
- Human, all too human: a BBC film of his early life, with a focus on his political involvement
 Works by Heidegger
- English translations of Heidegger’s works
- Heidegger works on archive.org
- Some volumes of Gesamtausgabe (Klostermann) in German
|Short description||German philosopher|
|Date of birth||September 26, 1889|
|Place of birth||Meßkirch, Germany|
|Date of death||May 26, 1976|
|Place of death||Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany|