Examining Heidegger’s Philosophy and Political Involvement

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Paradox of Heidegger
Heidegger’s Concept of Authentic and Inauthentic
Inauthenticity in National Socialism and the Nazi Party
Existentialist Viewpoint Concerning Self
Anxiety and exhausting Authenticity
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Martin Heidegger was a philosopher born in 1889 in Messkirch, Germany. Being from a humble background, his parents could not afford to educate him. He, therefore, got a scholarship from the Catholic Church, where his father served as a sexton. He proceeded to the University of Freiburg, where he got his doctorate in Philosophy at the age of twenty-four. In 1915, he concluded his habilitation and thus qualified to teach theology at university. Later in 1917, he transformed and became a protestant Lutheran, which was attributed to his intensive studies of the protestant texts.

He joined the phenomenology movement, which Husserl founded. This movement aimed at describing the structures of consciousness unstained by Philosophy and science. As a mentee, he acquired vast knowledge of the phenomenological reduction method from his mentor, Husserl. He was then appointed associate professor at the University of Marburg, where he taught Philosophy in 1923 (Wheeler). Despite his young age, he became famous among his students, and they all admired him. According to Velasquez (110), his renown was described as the ‘rumor of a hidden king.’ Nonetheless, upon the retirement of Husserl as a professor of Philosophy, the University of Freiburg offered Heidegger the position, and he accepted it despite a similar offer from Marburg.

Heidegger became one of the greatest philosophers in Germany and played a significant role in determining the course of Europe during the 20^th century. He made a commendable contribution to phenomenology, ontology, and existentialism through his work (Wheeler). He also published texts like ‘Being and Time,’ which were used as the basis of many studies throughout the years (Wheeler). This paper will discuss the paradox of Heidegger and his concept of authenticity and inauthentic, Inauthenticity regarding National Socialism and the Nazi party, and existentialist viewpoint concerning the self.

The Paradox of Heidegger

The paradox of subjectivity revolves around the difference in understanding and conceptualization between Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Husserl and Heidegger differed on the spirit of geometry and the spirit of kindness (Sass). According to Pascal, the doctrines that control our perceptions in life cannot be definite and distinct; any logical or scientific facts cannot support them. Unlike mathematics and science, these guidelines must be distinguished intuitively (Sass). Husserl was a student of mathematics while Heidegger was a student of theology; despite this, Husserl advocated for geometry, and Heidegger seemed to support the spirit of kindness.

These differences are exhibited in their writing styles and points of view in their various philosophies. The paradox emanates from the structure of human consciousness. For instance, Husserl portrayed the existence of man’s consciousness as both subjective and objective of our knowledge (Sass). On the other hand, Heidegger was mainly focused on the hindrances that epistemology presented for accurate knowledge and authenticity of life. More so, Heidegger claimed that the objective and perspective aspects of the human consciousness were inseparable.

Heidegger believed that man was not just a thinking subject that was distanced from the world; instead, an individual is involved with the world as long as they exist. The Dasein ideology advocates for commitment and involvement as key features of an individual who is not just subjective (Louis). An embodied self is usually aware of the world around in a subjective manner and also objectively existent in the world.

These two concepts may or may not be similar since subjective awareness tends to imply that an individual is not part of the world. Also, when referred to as an object, it may imply that an individual is just an object in the world (Sass). Nagel argues how to combine these two senses to refer to oneself whereby a person has the whole world in one scenario, and in the other, they are part of that world. Nagel’s formulation concludes that the problem of combining the two senses is manifested into different puzzles regarding the crucial concerns of Philosophy. Unlike Nagel, Husserl’s formulation is not concerned with the sense of self embodiment but is concerned with the intersubjectivity of the universe where all objectivity and subjectivity have been solved.

In Husserl’s Universal inter-subjectivity, everything is based on a community where individuals belong and exist. However, this formulation has one limitation: it suggests that the universe is made of itself, which is not logical. Various philosophers have attempted to solve the contradiction, but none has been able to because it is open to many interpretations. Other philosophers claimed that the paradox does not exist because the two senses of self cannot be interpreted in an ontic manner (Existentialism). Sass argues that the enigma would only disappear if it were deduced epistemically. He also explained that if the absurdity is recognized, it would be two points of view of the same concept. According to Drummond, the paradox does not have any contradictions regarding transcendent phenomenology (Sass). Its reflection hardly illuminates the variations between the transcendent and empirical perspectives but enables a less enigmatic coexistence.

Nevertheless, the implications of this oxymoron can be untangled by distinguishing the various dimensions of the contradiction, including equivocation, subjectivity, and epistemic interpretation. Through the analysis of these dimensions, it was revealed that despite the many attempts to solve the contradiction by the philosophers, all they achieved was to push it from one dimension to another (Sass). Ultimately, the paradox could not be completely solved because it originates from the core of human consciousness and experiences.

Aside from the paradox of subjectivity, the paradox of ground ‘ground’ dominated the twentieth century. Discussions on the development of this concept occupied every philosopher to derive the conclusion of the concept. The concept of ‘ground’ was based on self-realization of oneself. In this Philosophy, the subject matter was treated reflectively. It had some similarities to the paradox of subjectivity. The two major philosophers who had mastered the new concept were Heidegger and Whitehead. They both identified two features of time that were crucial in shaping how people view time. These two factors were the virtue of the ultimate irreducibility of time, and time is discrete, indivisible, and finite, making it unique because it cannot be repeated. Similar concerns have been raised through various media of communication.

Based on the point of view of the later Wittgenstein, the concept of existentialism is just another way of secularizing the expressions of metaphysics. According to Wittgenstein (127), humans are decentralized subjects as expressed in their organizations, language, and structure. Other philosophers have also developed similar concepts; Gadamer, for instance, drew his theory from an idealist tradition in Germany, and thus, his initial model had a self-expanding structure. Bradley (130) argues that the new theory was characterized by two features referred to as twine characteristics: groundlessness and self-realization. Virtue irreducibility of time refers to the impossibility of breaking down time into smaller segments from which it can be reconstructed. However, time can only be realized on a progressive level; as such, Whitehead and Heidegger allowed for privileged positions that enabled time realization. The second concept is event analysis, and is characterized by specific reasoning. According to this concept, time is not pre-arranged; it happens without prior planning (Bradley135). Whitehead and Heidegger ascertained time was an endless cycle and could not be stopped or even understood at an infinite level.

Heidegger’s Concept of Authentic and Inauthentic

According to Heidegger, the term authentic refers to the ability of an individual to accept who they are and live by their values and beliefs. In addition, it refers to an individual who is flexible, open and upholds integrity and persistence. Inauthenticity refers to when individuals conform to their environment and live by the rules governing their surrounding environment by refusing to follow their attitudes and beliefs. In his book ‘Being and Time,’ Heidegger assesses how one can avoid Inauthenticity to live an authentic life (Abergel 81). He emphasizes the concept of accepting one’s temporality in the world and being at peace with it. He warns against curiosity, ambiguous and idle conversations claiming that they lead to Inauthenticity. A complete understanding of an authentic life can be achieved if one masters the ideology of Dasein.

The term Dasein is derived from a German word that means existence when translated to English. The meaning of this word varies with people’s understanding; to some, it means the presence of self or being there or manifestation. Nevertheless, “one cannot define Dasein’s essence by citing a ‘what’ of the kind that pertains to a subject matter” (Heidegger 32). He suggests that one should treat it like a verb and not a noun to understand the term. However, “Dasein’s being cannot have the character of an entity,” but one must always consider its implications concerning humans (Heidegger 23). Heidegger majorly focuses on human beings’ relations with the world; thus, Dasein eliminates all entities that may influence these relations.

He believes that “the basic state of Dasein’s everydayness” has a crucial role in illuminating humans as more unprejudiced and realistic. He clarifies that Dasein is not a point on a given timeline, “Dasein stretches itself along” (Heidegger 426). According to the book, Dasein can stretch between the present and the past to modify its being and thus actualizes the imagination of human beings (Heidegger 38). Since Dasein can make choices and interpret information, Heidegger claims it can become inauthentic because it participates in idle talks. Heidegger (122) argues that whenever Dasein speaks to avoid silence, the risk of trivialities increases, and to some extent, the trivialities may be treated as consequential. As such, he voices his opinions and though for others to know what he believes.

According to Heidegger, human beings must accept that they are temporary and that death is inevitable. It is when humans have familiarized themselves with “the finitude of (his) existence” they can achieve authenticity (Heidegger 435). Human beings have limited time; therefore, it is upon them to awaken their finitude and be aware of the essence of life before it is over (Abergel 77). Heidegger illustrates that for one to be authentic, they have to be fully committed to self and the revealed existence of Dasein’s self. Concealing oneself to relate with other people is inauthentic; instead, one should be proud of who they are and be visible to everybody (Heidegger 159). In addition, when authentic people get together and carry out a task together, they become one in authenticity and consequently free each other.

Inauthenticity in National Socialism and the Nazi Party

Heidegger’s interests in politics began when Adolf Hitler assumed the office of the Chancellor of Germany. To him, this was the beginning of a new and different chapter in the history of Germany (Todariya 236). At the time, he was a professor at Freiburg and later a rector and thus became a member of the Nazi party. During his inauguration as the new rector, Heidegger gave a speech that openly acknowledged the Nazi regime (Haerr 21). He associated the self-assertion of the University of Germany with leaving the League; by leaving the League of Nations, Germany was asserting itself and declaring dominance. The speech attracted criticism from other scholars who were against Hitler’s actions.

Eduard Langwald opposed the critics and said that the speech had nothing similar to the Nazi ideology; if anything, the speech was anti-Hitlerism. Heidegger also demoted his coworkers who did not support the Nazis fully (Rockmore). He believed Hitler would free their country from communists who ruled over Germany. Despite Heidegger’s enthusiasm for the new regime, people were afraid of Hitler’s capabilities. When Hitler took office, there were almost 180 professors in public universities in Germany, and despite their differences with Hitler’s leadership, they had to join his party to keep their jobs (Haerr 11). The professors were inauthentic because they had to pretend they supported Hitler to keep their jobs.

Heidegger revealed Inauthenticity, too, because he concealed his being to integrate freely with the Nazis. As the university rector, he issued a decree that identified with the racial policy of the Nazis, and the new law prohibited Jews and other non-Aryan students from vying for any student council positions in the university (Todariya 237). These positions were only reserved for Aryan Germans. The same applied to economic aid for the students. The only students who qualified for financial aid were those from military families and Aryan Germans only (Haerr 22). He signed his position as the university rector and stopped attending party meetings but still retained his membership in the party, and this act portrayed his Inauthenticity.

Heidegger used his influence on the Nazis to manipulate discussion concerning his texts and work. He presented his work as the official word of the Nazis, and thus, no one would oppose or correct him (Rockmore). It was believed that the thoughts he presented were not his own; they were developed by his associates, who also provided him with strategies to counter his critics (Haerr 21). These allegations raised questions about his reach and influence on the Nazis. Despite the critics he received, Heidegger always had people who defended him.

Prominent people ensured his reputation was safeguarded by locking any texts and information that threatened to smear mud on his reputation. Heidegger never spoke of his role in the Nazis throughout his life despite the many interviews he attended (Fritsche). He wrote many texts that gave hints about the questions people were asking about his involvement in the Nazis. These hints were vague and impossible to comprehend. However, the hints were dimmed, misleading upon his colleagues’ release of writings and texts, which neutralized any rumors concerning Heidegger (Todariya 239). Nonetheless, letters exchanged between Heidegger, and Herbert Marcuse proved otherwise since they revealed his association with the Nazis.

In some of these letters, he justified the Nazis’ actions and compared the pros and cons of Jewish executions with the agricultural development the Nazis brought to Germany. As a result, a restriction was placed on all unpublished work of Heidegger, including his publication (Haerr 24). Concealment of these documents is a form of Inauthenticity among the Nazis and Heidegger. Different authors wrote books associating Heidegger with the Nazis, and these allegations stirred varying reactions from different people. Some of these people defended him, while others agreed with the publication. Heidegger believed that Germany was demonstrating authenticity when Hitler withdrew from the League of Nations.

Germany pursued her interests of freedom and achieved them by leaving the League of Nations. Germany did not fear what other states would think of hers and proceeded with the action. In other words, he suggested that countries in the leagues of nations were only members to identify with other countries, and that was Inauthenticity (Stolorow et al.). However, in the real sense, Heidegger was being inauthentic by concealing his character and ignoring the fact that Germany was withdrawing from the League so that it could be free to do whatever it wanted.

Existentialist Viewpoint Concerning Self

Existentialism is a philosophical approach that advocates for a free existence of an individual as a responsible agent with the will to determine their choices and actions. An existentialist is a person who supports existentialism (Heidegger). Sense of self and its constituents is a vast field of research and study in which many philosophers are majoring. The study of self is said to have started in ancient Greece and has since developed to more advanced levels over the years (Heidegger). Despite the developments in this field, philosophers are yet to understand how one can change so much and not change at all.

Plato could not understand how the same remained, yet everything about them had changed. Plato wondered why people believed they remained as they were despite their changes (Velasquez 121). Western philosophers view the self as an immaterial being in an individual’s body. Velasquez (123) argues that the self is a thinking being, and it is the ability to think continuously that allows him to remain the same. He believed that it is the action of thinking that creates the self and maintains it. Nevertheless, the view of self is limited to the self’s ability to think and reason.

Martin Heidegger was initially a theology student before diversifying to phenomenology, and he majored in existentialism. He was an existentialist by profession; he focused on an individual’s ability to live authentically in an otherwise inauthentic world (Justice). He was against any dualism regarding the mind and the body and thus developed the Dasein. Dasein resulted in even more questions, resulting in more research and studies. He was against the Cartesian view and thus developed a different view of self (Heidegger). He suggests that it is not our knowledge, but the moods tether us to the world. Our anger, boredom, and joy link us and enable us to experience the world. He differs from Descartes’ view of claiming that Dasein is a thinking thing (Heidegger). He believes that authenticity is usually a product of Dasein, and it is achieved during reflective moments upon which we attain self-recognition like facing death.

Anxiety and exhausting Authenticity

Anxiety is the feeling of nervousness and uneasiness about something that has an uncertain outcome. Heidegger describes the conditions of human beings as paradoxical, and that attitudes vary depending on their moods (Magrini 79). He portrays Dasein, the being in the world, the Being-towards death. He outlines death as the path Dasein follows as it transforms into a new form. According to Heidegger, death is but another possibility of Dasein, and he also explains anxiety as a way human beings respond to things they do not understand.

He also clarifies the difference between fear and anxiety and demise and death. Fear is what we feel when we face something threatening, it is objectified, and when the object is removed, the fears go away, too (Magrini 78). On the other hand, anxiety is an anxious feeling about nothing in particular and is uncertain. Death is the way to Dasein, but that does not mean the human person is meaningless; it is because human mortality encourages self-realization (Magrini 84). During anxiety, one is first overwhelmed with an authentic self, and it feels like being immersed in a sea with tied arms and feet, totally helpless. It does not need darkness or despair; it can attack even in safe situations. A feeling of meaningless strikes and confusion follows, and through this, one becomes self-aware.

As much as authenticity is crucial in achieving Dasein is very exhausting. Authenticity is strenuous because one has to ensure one observes and lives according to one’s true self despite the influence of peers. Authenticity dictates one to be calm, avoid idle and empty talks, perseverance, and integrity. These virtues may be difficult to observe and adhere to; this is because, in an individual’s daily life activities, they interact with many people, each with their beliefs and attitudes (Magrini 84). Therefore, one may be ridiculed, despised, and even denied crucial services because they will be seen as pretenders. Some will be forced to conceal their self-being to avoid drawing any attention. For instance, when one is in a gathering with friends, they will be forced to contribute to the conversations they are making because if they remain silent, they are likely to be insulted and chased from the group. In general, being authentic is tiresome, as portrayed in the “Being and Time” by Heidegger.

Conclusion

Heidegger has revealed a paradox in his book The Being and Time. As outlined in his book, the paradox of subjectivity revolves around the difference between Heidegger’s and Husserl’s ideologies on the concepts of the spirit of geometry and the spirit of kindness. Husserl, a mathematician advocates for the spirit of geometry which support the ideology of dualism whereby man is subjective and objective to the universe. Therefore, human consciousness can be subjective to the world and an object. Heidegger opposed this ideology because he believed that the two aspects of human consciousness could not be separated. Various philosophers have revealed Inauthenticity in National Socialism and the Nazis through their publications and writings. Over the years, Existentialists have studied how to achieve existentialism effectively. Anxiety is considered a pathway to attaining Dasein because anxiety makes people authentic. One can achieve their authenticity once they have accepted that death is inevitable and that they are only here temporarily. Authenticity is exhausting because one has to maintain calm despite the disruptions and influence from peers.

Works Cited

Abergel, David C. “The Confluence of Authenticity and Inauthenticity in Heidegger’s Being and Time.” Gatherings: The Heidegger Circle Annual vol, 10, 2020: 74-110.

Bradley, James. “Whitehead, Heidegger, and the Paradoxes of the New.” Process Studies vol, 20. No. 3, 1991, pp. 127-150. Web.

“Existentialism – Martin Heidegger (1889–1971).”Self, Dasein, World, and Philosophy – JRank Articles, WEB solutions, science.jrank. Web.

Fritsche, Johannes. Historical destiny and national socialism in Heidegger’s Being and Time. University of California Press, 1999.

Haerr, Julia Lauren. “The Masks of Heidegger: National Socialism and Anti-Semitism.” (2015).

Heidegger Martin, (Being and Time New York Harper & Row) 1962. Joan Stambaugh, and Dennis J. Schmidt. Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010. Print. Web.

Justice, Mark. “Adaptation and Malleability: An Existentialist View of Self.”Linkedin, Web.

Magrini, James. “Anxiety” in Heidegger’s Being and Time: The Harbinger of Authenticity.” (2006). Web.

Rockmore, Tom. “On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy.”Cdlib.org, 1997, Web.

‌Sass, Louis. “Husserl, Heidegger, and the paradox of subjectivity.” Continental Philosophy Review, vol. 54, no. 3, 2021, pp. 295-317.

Stolorow, Robert D., George E. Atwood, and Donna M. Orange. “Heidegger’s Nazism and the hypostatization of being.” International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, vol. 5 no. 4, 2010, pp. 429-450.

Todariya, Saurabh. (2016). “Authentic Historical and National Socialism in Being and Time. Kritike An Online Journal of Philosophy”, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 236-254.

Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy- a Text with Readings. Eighth edition. Wadsworth, 2002.

Wheeler, Michael, “Martin Heidegger,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Click Here To Order Now!