Martin Heidegger: Middle Works

Martin Heidegger (b. 1889–d. 1976) is a central figure in 20th-century philosophy. Especially in his early works, most notably Being and Time (1927), Heidegger critically continues the tradition of phenomenology inaugurated by Edmund Husserl (b. 1859–d. 1938). Heidegger’s philosophy has been a major influence on a number of important philosophers in their own right, including Hans-Georg Gadamer (b. 1900–d. 2002), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (b. 1908–d. 1961), Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975), Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913–d. 2005), Michel Foucault (b. 1926–d. 1984), Jacques Derrida (b. 1930–d. 2004), and Richard Rorty (b. 1931–d. 2007). His work has also impacted other disciplines, such as theology, literary and cultural studies, art theory, and the theory of architecture. Heidegger is primarily known for his work in metaphysics and existential philosophy, but he has also made much-discussed contributions to a wide range of philosophical topics, including the study of numerous authors from the history of philosophy. The German edition of his collected works (Gesamtausgabe, or GA) includes published writings, lecture courses, seminars, and manuscripts. Once completed, it will include 102 volumes. To manage this rich material, Heidegger’s philosophy is often divided into different periods. Although how to demarcate these periods is itself a matter of scholarly debate, Oxford Bibliographies divides his work into an early, middle, and later period. This entry treats the middle period of his thought (roughly 1933–1945). It coincides with the rise to power of the German National Socialist Party, in which Heidegger was involved as rector of the University of Freiburg, the Second World War, and the Holocaust. Although Heidegger rarely addresses these events directly, this period in particular should not be considered without taking into account these events and the dominant ideologies of the time. Heidegger’s major concerns during this period are with the experience of art, the philosophy of history, and the history of Western philosophy in particular. Heidegger gives a few important lectures and lecture series during this time that were later edited. These should be the starting point for any reading. The major body of his writing during this period, however, consists of manuscripts, notes, and course materials, which are more difficult to assess. In using this bibliography, be sure to also check the entries on the early and later period of Heidegger’s works. Although the focus of Heidegger’s philosophical concern shifts, many themes continue to be relevant throughout his works. Often, scholars writing on Heidegger take into account his development as whole, and relevant literature may be treated in another entry. This bibliography aims to be inclusive with regard to schools of thought and interpretations of Heidegger. It is not exhaustive but rather an attempt to identify useful starting points for individual study within the more recent literature on Heidegger.

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (142) ◽  
pp. 229
Author(s):  
Jorge Augusto Da Silva Santos

Resumo: O artigo trata da confrontação crítico-positiva de Martin Heidegger com Edmund Husserl com base em dois momentos importantes de seu Denkweg ao longo da atividade docente nas Universidades de Freiburg e Marburg. O primeiro emerge no curso friburguense de 1919 intitulado “A ideia da filosofia e o problema da visão de mundo” (GA 56/57), onde Heidegger esboça sua con­cepção hermenêutica da fenomenologia com a introdução da expressão “intuição hermenêutica” no final da preleção acadêmica. O segundo momento selecionado da confrontação se dá no curso do semestre de inverno de 1923-1924 intitulado “Introdução à investigação fenomenológica” (GA 17), onde não somente critica diretamente as obras de seu mestre, mas também através da “destruição” tanto do “ponto de partida” quanto do “escopo” da fenomenologia, a saber: a apro­priação husserliana de R. Descartes. Nesse sentido, trata-se de uma “polêmica contra Husserl disfarçada de crítica a Descartes”. Do syn-philosophein inicial com Husserl (“A fenomenologia somos eu [Husserl] e Heidegger, de resto mais ninguém”), mesmo dentro de uma contínua tensão, Heidegger passa a uma ruptura cada vez mais radical até se consumar no parricídio completo ora nas preleções do semestre de verão de Marburg intituladas “Prolegômenos para a história do conceito de tempo” (GA20), ora na tentativa fracassada da elaboração a duas mãos do artigo “Fenomenologia” para a Encyclopaedia Britannica em 1927.Abstract: The article deals with the critical - positive confrontation of Martin Heidegger with Edmund Husserl, based on two important moments of Heidegger’s Denkweg, throughout his teaching activity in the universities of Freiburg and Marburg. It is first in his 1919 Freiburg course, entitled “The idea of philoso­phy and the problem of world view” (GA 56/57), that Heidegger outlines his hermeneutic conception of phenomenology, with the introduction of the term “hermeneutic intuition”, at the end of his academic lectures. The second mo­ment of confrontation takes place in the winter semester of 1923-1924 and is entitled “Introduction to phenomenological research” (GA 17). There, Heidegger criticizes his master’s works, both directly and through the “destruction” of the “starting point” and “scope” of phenomenology, namely Husserl’s appropria­tion of R. Descartes. In this sense, it is a “polemic against Husserl disguised as criticism against Descartes.” In a context of continuous tension, Heidegger moves away from the early syn-philosophein with Husserl - “Phenomenology is myself [Husserl] and Heidegger, nobody else”. The philosopher makes an increasingly radical break until the parricide is consummated with both his Marburg summer lectures, entitled “Prolegomena to the history of the concept of time” (GA20) and the failed attempt to prepare, together with Husserl, the article “Phenomenology” for the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1927


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Moro ◽  
Samita Nandy ◽  
Kiera Obbard ◽  
Andrew Zolides

Using celebrity narratives as a starting point, this Special Issue explores the social significance of storytelling for social change. It builds on the 8th Centre for Media and Celebrity Studies conference, which brought together scholars and media practitioners to explore how narratives inspired by the lives of celebrities, public intellectuals, critics and activists offer useful rhetorical tools to better understand dominant ideologies. This editorial further problematizes what it means to be a popular ‘storyteller’ using the critical lens of celebrity activism and life-writing. Throughout the issue, contributors analyse the politics of representation at play within a wide range of glamourous narratives, including documentaries, memoirs, TED talks, stand-up performances and award acceptance speeches in Hollywood and beyond. The studies show how we can strategically use aesthetic communication to shape identity politics in public personas and bring urgent social change in an image-driven celebrity culture.


Author(s):  
Julio Quesada

Mi ensayo ha querido explicar genealógicamente y de forma contextualizada el desencuentro entre Ernst Cassirer y Martin Heidegger en Davos, y la deriva de éste hacia el nazismo desde los presupuestos de su filosofía existencial. ¿Qué papel juega el antisemitismo espiritual en la crítica heideggeriana al neokantismo y la fenomenología trascendental? ¿Por qué la fenomenología de Edmund Husserl es "una monstruosidad"? ¿Por qué Kant se convierte en batalla y campo de batalla de la Kulturkampf? ¿Por qué se lee a Heidegger como se lee? ¿Qué sentido tiene la práctica de la historia de la filosofía en el “final” de la filosofía?My essay wanted to explain genealogically and in a contextualized way the disagreement between Cassirer and Heidegger in Davos, and its drift towards Nazism from the budgets of their existential philosophy. What role does spiritual anti-Semitism play in the Heideggerian critique of neo-Kantianism and transcendental phenomenology? Why is Husserl's phenomenology "a monstrosity"? Why does Kant become the battle and battlefield of the Kulturkampf? Why do you read Heidegger as you read? What is the meaning of the practice of the history of philosophy in the “final” of philosophy?


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edik Minasyan

The work presents a complete scientific research on the history of Yerevan in the period of the Third Republic of Armenia (1991-2018). The analysis of the materials of the RA National Archive, various press and other relevant literature shows the process of the establishment of the RA independent statehood, the socio-political, socio-economic-cultural life of Yerevan, the role of capital in the administrative-political system of the republic, its comprehensive assistance to Artsakh, foreign relations, including sister cities, international organizations and structures. The book is addressed to historians, political scientists, those interested in Yerevan’s history, and wide range of readers in general. (in Armenian).


Author(s):  
◽  
VALTERS ZARIŅŠ ◽  

Book review focuses on two books by Gunther Neumann, dedicated to the thought of Heidegger and Leibniz. If one of the books deals specifically with the understanding of freedom in both of the two philosophers, then the other one deals more with Heidegger’s three approaches to Leibniz’s thought: (1) Interpretation of Leibniz in the context of the making of fundamental ontology and in Being and Time, as well as the reading of Leibniz after Being and Time; (2) Interpretation of Leibniz during the transition to Ereignis thought; (3) Interpetation of Leibniz in the framework of Ereignis thought. Author’s scrupulous close reading approach allows to show the changes in Heidegger’s approach to Leibniz’s philosophy, as well as sketch out the placement of Leibniz’s great themes on the horizon of Heidegger’s history of the truth of being. Author also shows that from metaphysics there stems a certain view in the modern philosophical discussions oriented on neurosciences—a certain view on the human being and on the freedom of will. On this background Heidegger appears as a thinker who has looked beyond the alloy of metaphysics and sciences, in which the concept of freedom has been greatly restricted. Heidegger manages (thanks to the radical questioning of Being) to turn the view on the problem of freedom, which appears in G. Neumann’s books as the main problem of philosophy—through the contact of Leibniz’s thought and Heidegger’s.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-25
Author(s):  
Ștefan Bolea

The similitude between anxiety and death is the starting point of Paul Tillich's analysis from The Courage To Be, his famous theological and philosophical reply to Martin Heidegger's Being And Time. Not only Tillich and Heidegger are concerned with the connection between anxiety and death but also other proponents of both existentialism and nihilism like Friedrich Nietzsche, Emil Cioran and Lev Shestov. Tillich observes that "anxiety puts frightening masks" over things and perhaps this definition is its finest contribution to the spectacular phenomenology of anxiety. Moreover, Tillich has some illuminating insights about the anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness, which are important for the history of the existential philosophy. It is interesting how the protestant theologian tries to answer to Heidegger: while the German philosopher asserted that we must avoid fear and we have to embrace anxiety as a route to personal authenticity, Tillich notes that we should transform anxiety into fear, because courage is more likely to "abolish" fear.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-131
Author(s):  
I.B. Grinshpun

This publication continues a series of lectures by Igor Borisovich Grinshpun about the history of psychotherapy. This part is devoted to the influence of XIX cen- tury psychology and philosophy to the psychotherapy and describes a wide range of personalities of that time. It traces the development of the natural science line from Wundt’s up to the American behaviorism. We consider some of the ideas of F. Brentano, and their development in the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger existentialism. Indirect and direct influence of this philosophical approaches to different areas of psychotherapy is analyzed. The founded by Dil- they humanitarian direction in psychology are considered , which became a base for humanistic and existential psychotherapy. The meaning of the hermeneutics of for psychotherapy is discussed. The analysis of the A. Pushkin writings’ fragments in terms of hermeneutics is done. It addresses the issue of diagnosis in psychiatry and psychotherapy. The influence of F. Galton ideas and inventions to psychology and psychotherapy is described. There is shown the connection between the pseudosci- ence phrenology and the doctrine of the localization of mental functions, which is important for the development of psychiatry and clinical psychology.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 151-176

This paper is an attempt to construct a new phenomenology that will be able to bring us back to things themselves, as Edmund Husserl had promised to his students. Such a phenomenology seeks to reveal and describe phenomena and the conditions of givenness which presuppose a failure of the subject’s capacity for representation and therefore permits an apprehension of something that exists as radically external to the subject. Description of such phenomena paves the way to undermining correlationism from the inside, and a phenomenology of this kind therefore feeds into what is termed speculative realism. Thе paper takes as a starting point Dylan Trigg’s phenomenology of horror, although it lacks a conceptual analysis of horrifying phenomena, and brings Jean-Luc Marion’s concept of a saturated phenomenon to bear on the conceptual analysis of horrifying phenomena. In addition to a phenomenology of horror, the paper also argues for an escape from correlationism by analyzing the feeling of anxiety. By means of a critical analysis of Vladimir Bibikhin’s translation of Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time, the paper establishes a phenomenological distinction between anxiety and horror. The phenomenon of one’s own death is analyzed as a fundamental phenomenon of anxiety. The analysis of the phenomenon of one’s own death introduces the new concept of a perverse phenomenon, which complements Marion’s classification of all possible phenomena. The paper erects a conceptual scheme to describe feelings of horror and anxiety, further analysis of which will enable phenomenology to transition from the life of consciousness to reality-as-it-is. The paper’s concludes with an indication of the phenomena of contemporary culture that should become primary objects of a realistic phenomenology of horror and anxiety.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-286
Author(s):  
Frank Zipfel

AbstractInvestigations into the history of the modern practice of fiction encounter a wide range of obstacles. One of the major impediments lies in the fact that former centuries have used different concepts and terms to designate or describe phenomena or ideas that we, during the last 50 years, have been dealing with under the label of fiction/ality. Therefore, it is not easy to establish whether scholars and poets of other centuries actually do talk about what we today call fiction or fictionality and, if they do, what they say about it. Moreover, even when we detect discourses or propositions that seem to deal with aspects of fictionality we have to be careful and ask whether these propositions are actually intended to talk about phenomena that belong to the realm of fiction/ality. However, if we want to gain some knowledge about the history of fiction/ality, we have no other choice than to tackle the arduous task of trying to detect similarities (and differences) between the present-day discourse on fictionality and (allegedly) related discourses of other epochs. The goal of this paper is to make a small contribution to this task.The starting point of the paper are two observations, which also determine the approach I have chosen for my investigations. 1) In the 18th century the terms »fiction« or »fictionality« do not seem to play a significant role in the discussion of art and literature. However, some propositions of the discourse on imagination, one of the most prominent discourses of the Age of Enlightenment, seem to suggest that this discourse deals more or less explicitly with questions regarding the fictionality of literary artefacts as we conceive it today. 2) The concepts of imagination and fictionality are also closely linked in present-day theories of fiction. Naturally, the question arises how the entanglement of the concepts of fictionality and imagination can be understood in a historical perspective. Can it function as a common ground between 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality? Is imagination still used in the same ways to explain phenomena of fictionality or have the approaches evolved over the last 250 years and if yes, then how? These kinds of questions inevitably lead to one major question: What do 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality have in common, how much and in what ways do they differ?For heuristic reasons, the article is subdivided according to what I consider the three salient features of today’s institutional theories of fiction (i. e. theories which try to explain fictionality as an institutional practice that is determined and ruled by specific conventions): fictive utterance (aspects concerning the production of fictional texts), fictional content (aspects concerning the narrated story in fictional texts) and fictive stance (aspects concerning the reader’s response to fictional texts). The article focusses on the English, French and German-speaking debates of the long 18th century and within these discourses on the most central and, therefore, for the development of the concept of fiction/ality most influential figures. These are, most notably, Madame de Staël, Voltaire, Joseph Addison, Georg Friedrich Meier, Christian Wolff, the duo Johann Jakob Bodmer and Johann Jakob Breitinger as well as their adversary Johann Christoph Gottsched.The relevance of the article for a historical approach to the theory of fiction lies in the following aspects. By means of a tentative reconstruction of some carefully chosen propositions of 18th-century discourse on imagination I want to show that these propositions deal in some way or other with literary phenomena and theoretical concepts that in present-day theory are addressed under the label of fiction/ality. By comparing propositions stemming from 18th-century discourse on imagination with some major assertions of present-day theories of fiction I try to lay bare the similarities and the differences of the respective approaches to literary fiction and its conceptualisations. One of the major questions is to what extent these similarities and differences stem from the differing theoretical paradigms that are used to explain literary phenomena in both epochs. I venture some hypotheses about the influence of the respective theoretical backgrounds on the conceptions of fictionality then and today. An even more intriguing question seems to be whether the practice of fictional storytelling as we know and conceive it today had already been established during the 18th century or whether it was only in the process of being established.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 2509-2523
Author(s):  
Olga B. Solomonova ◽  
Galyna F. Zavgorodnia ◽  
Olha V. Muravska ◽  
Alla D. Chernoivanenko ◽  
Oksana O. Aleksandrova

The terminology of music semiology, which is an academic discipline with a significant educational resonance and a necessary component of music and educational practice at its higher educational and qualification levels, lies at the intersection of the main aspects of musicology such as the history of music, the theory and analysis of musical forms, music aesthetics and the theory of music interpretation, and others. Music semiology covers the transitional methodological abilities due to its subject reference points and the wide range of the material involved in the cognitive field. Music semiology can be considered a necessary basic discipline for the professional training of musicologists and practicing musicians of any programme. There is no doubt about the importance of mastering the language system, which is fundamental in the chosen field of communication. As an academic discipline, music semiology can be presented according to the way its terminology is built, it includes three main themes among which each of the following continues the meaning of the previous one by deepening and enlarging, detailing in an analytical way. Scientific novelty is determined by the fact that unlike music semiotics and the theory of music semantics, semiology is looking for a way not only to expand culture, but also the metacultural ontological and transcendental premises of human thinking and communication, it refers to the experience that is the "starting point for all beginnings" while explaining the reasons for any human activity related to signs, the needs of the human community in the development of language and in linguistic being. But most of all, it is determined by the need to identify the origins of the musical language as the language of consciousness, which reveals its true reality of creating meaning to a person. Therefore, the study within music semiology focuses on specific ways of organising the sign form and meaning-designated content. The practical significance of the study is determined by the fact that the sociocultural nature of humans, which is integral to the natural and biological conditions of one’s existence, is merged with human speech.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document