Basic Writings : Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (1964)

Rating:
Summary: Understanding Heidegger
Review: Have you ever tried to discribe color to the blind? Provisonally, this metaphor can be used to discribe what (possibly) was Heidegger's problem and a (possible) reason(ing) for his ambiguity. What Heidegger (possibly) is trying to do is to discibe something which is not a thing which is everythng. See the problems of lingustics as one approches question of being. There (is) stricly no signifiers for a concept like being. Nothing to hold on to as a concert subject.

Rating:
Summary: Are you *sure* you want to do this to yourself?
Review: I'm giving this book three stars, because it is what it claims to be--a good collection of essays by Martin Heidegger. If you have to read this for a class, I'm sorry. If you're thinking about buying this book as an introduction to Heidegger's thought, let me explain why I don't think you should.

Heidegger, you see, is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. (He's not any better in the original German, so it's not the translator's fault.) Now, in most fields of intellectual endeavour, this is a liability. In modern philosophy, however, it is taken to mean that you are a genius, and will result in a great many academics claiming to understand you, and publishing a lot of even more unintelligible material about your work. This has been perfected by the French; try reading some Deleuze or Lacan, for example. It can be entertaining, but is hardly informative. Contrast this with people who can be superficially difficult to understand because of the depth of their thought, but whose writing *can* be understood, and has great clarity and power, for example, Robert Nozick, Hilary Putnam, or even Wittgenstein.

I will tell you that I have never been able to really understand Heidegger. You may simply think that this is because I'm not smart enough, but I knew a lot of really smart people in college and graduate school, and they all thought Heidegger was unintelligible as well. The only people I knew who claimed to be able to understand Heidegger were not as smart, frankly, and though they claimed to understand what Heidegger was talking about, yet none of them were able to explain it to me, which raises a huge red flag.

So, the question remains, was Heidegger a genius, but incapable of expressing himself to mere mortals? Or was he like Hegel, an idiot who hid behind muddled and confused verbiage? I'd favor the former, as he does occasionally express himself clearly and seems to be profound when he does, in contrast to Hegel, who always reveals himself to be a drooling moron on the rare occasion in which he writes about something you can understand.

If you still want to read sentences like:

"We intimated that a pre-ontological Being belongs to Dasein as its ontic constitution. Dasein *is* in such a way that, by being, it understands something like Being."

then best of luck to you and happy reading.

Rating:
Summary: Ek-sistence in the Poetic
Review: This book is a collection of 10 + 1 essays (the + 1 being the Introduction to Heidegger's master-piece "Being and Time") by Martin Heidegger, who may very well be among the most controversial of 20th centurty philosophers. His controversy is, no doubt, due in part to his brief (10 month) affiliation with the Nazi party between 1933 and 1934; however, the majority of the controversy surrounding him probably has to do with the sheer density of his writing. Heidegger is not easy to comprehend (grasping the whole); reading him is the pursuit of apprehending (touching the surface).

Heidegger does exactly what it is that philosophers are supposed to do by clearing a place in which to ask the question asked long ago by Aristotle (but forgotten - that is, covered over - by "philosophers"): the question of what it means "to be". Part of the problem with reading Heidegger is that his language is almost mystical: constant talk of revealing and concealing within the place of clearing and the ekstasis - the being outside of one's self - of humans which allows for the asking of what it means "to be". While a background in philosophy might be helpful to understand Heidegger, it may be more helpful to have a background in religion and Christian mysticism. Without knowing something of the mystical, Heidegger is bound to appear far more difficult than he actually is.

It is worth noting that while Heidegger is dense, he is also a poet. His aesthetically written grace is much of what gives his contemplations about the question of being such weight and gentle force. The important thing about reading Heidegger is to do exactly what he counsels one do in observing a work of art: stand outside of yourself and into the clearing of the work of art. This is what Heidegger refers to as "ek-sistence": a combination of the words "ekstasis" and "existence". It is like a type of mystical silence that Heidegger invites the reader to: a listening *beyond* what one simply, immediately hears. This, then, is the key to reading Heidegger: not to read him (an action done first and foremost by the knowing-reading subject), but to simply let him be read - a letting him be in his being.

A note on Being: it is all too easy (and all too incorrect) to interpret Heidegger's writings about Being as if he were talking about some sort of subject. Being, however, is not God or some sort of primal force or the tao or any*thing* else: no, "Being" as such does not translate from the ancient Greek and Heidegger's constant referral to Being brings the reader to the edge of her/his conceptual limits and, in so doing, creates the clearing that allows for the asking of the question. Without this clearing, there can be no philosophizing - only the history of [bad] metaphysics (the asking of what reality is), which obscures this fundamental and original question.

Heidegger is well worth the time and the effort. Those that are interested in the simple questions and simple answers will be lost amidst Heidegger's densely poetic thoughts; those that are unwilling to be outside of themselves will find him endlessly frustrating. Of course, this refusing of ek-sistence into the realm of Being is the fundamental problem with so much of philosophy today: it is lost in [bad] metaphysics, having forgotten the primal question. If you let him, Heidegger will lead you to the edge of thought where that question can not only be heard, but can be asked again.