
'He was born. He thought. He died.'Martin Heidegger on Aristotle
In 1999, the BBC broadcast a trilogy of documentaries discussing leading influential philosophers of the 20th Century. Named after Friedrich Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, the focus fell on the European tradition of what is loosely termed Continental Philosophy, and discussed the life and work of three major thinkers of the last two hundred years.
From Nietzsche, the series moved onto a biography of Martin Heidegger and culminated in a review of Sartre's theoretical contributions. Perhaps the commission was intended to combat a sense of pre-millenial angst: with the looming anxiety of a new century upon us, perhaps we were required to cling to some kernel of truth for comfort. Or, to put things more bleakly, perhaps the BBC was taking its cue from Montaigne, who, paraphrasing Cicero, observed that to philosophize is to learn how to die. But whatever the reason for the documentary's original broadcast, each episode appears to offer a succinct and entertaining glance at each of the philosopher's lives, while neatly summarizing some of their central ideas.
Heidegger once reduced the biography of the philosopher to being born, and subsequently dying, with room to think in-between. The BBC wholesomely rejects this approach, and instead delves into recent historical evidence revealing Heidegger's rather unwholesome involvement with National Socialism in the 1930s. There are references to the philosopher's key concepts, and a general introduction to the influence of Being and Time for the uninitiated - such as myself - but much of the focus is placed on biography.
I must admit, I was kept interested from start to finish. The thoughts and reflections of Jacques Derrida, Simon Critchley and George Steiner have inspired an interest in Heideggerian thought, but the dark realities of his political involvement have stark implications for the reception of his ideas and his philosophy in general.
It's speculated in the documentary that dividing one's life from one's work isn't so neat as first suggested, and there seem to be numerous problems in glossing over Martin Heidegger's commitment to the ideological ideals of Nazism. George Steiner and Richard Rorty, among others, appear as witnesses for the prosecution, while maintaining that Heidegger's work offers moments of brilliance that place him among the most influential thinkers in Western thought.
You can watch the hour-long documentary at Youtube, which is divided into six parts, by selecting the first of the links below:
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 1)
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 2)
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 3)
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 4)
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 5)
- Human, All too Human (BBC): Martin Heidegger (Part 6)
2 Comments:
Hello Rhys!
Thanks for posting those links. I watched the documentary and didn't like it. I thought it was a very tabloidy presentation of his life, focusing overwhelmingly on his political sins and giving only a passing nod to his philosophy.
A certain sense of loss, even anguish at times, is present in Heidegger's work. One can easily see how National Socialism, with its disavowal of the modern world and its glorification of the bucolic past, must have appealed to him.
He should not have joined the Nazi party (he actually revoked his membership after only a short while, but anyway...), and he was probably an anti-semite-- this is all terrible indeed. But I don't find the fact that he did not apologize for his activities during the 30s so reprehensible. If he had apologized, I think it would have been wholly disingenuous. Apologies usually are.
Genocides have taken place for millenia. The holocaust was the most gruesome (or successful, depending on how you view it) because of technological advances. There would have been no holocaust without railroads, zyklon B gas, telegraph communication, and the medical advances that caused a rising German population to think, in the first place, that they needed "lebensraum." There would have been no holocaust, in short, without modernity.
In 1962 (I think) Heidegger gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he compared the death camps to industrialized agriculture. For many people, it was shocking comparison to make, but in fact it is consistent with his thought. And, basically, he is right. In both, there is a deficit of "Dasein," being-there/here.
There is a better documentary called "The Ister" (the Greek word for the Danube) that was made by a couple of Australian philosophers. It's very long, but worth it. Here is the link:
http://www.theister.com/
Hi Annemarie!
I think that reading and engaging with Heidegger's thought is always going to be problematic, considering the biographical details. And I don't think it is something that can ever be easily resolved, or summarized.
'The Ister' looks interesting; it reminds me a lot of the trailer for Claude Lanzmann's 'Shoah'.
Rhys
Post a Comment