I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god. SPIEGEL: Sie wissen, dass in diesem Zusammenhang einige Vorwürfe gegen Sie erhoben werden, die Ihre Zusammenarbeit mit der NSDAP und deren Verbänden betreffen und die in der Öffentlichkeit immer noch als unwidersprochen gelten.

Download options

Mit dem System, unter dem wir leben, müssen wir uns einrichten, müssen suchen, es zu ändern, müssen das schmale Tor zu einer Reform, das noch schmalere einer Revolution ausspähen. You always split the enemy. Video-Seite öffnen. JA: This kind of enemy is nevertheless identified.

Dec 31,  · This is the famous "Der Spiegel Interview" from in which Heidegger discusses the current crisis of nihilism and his rejection of some kind of fusion of East and West. A return to, and a resuscitation of the Western Tradition is here anticipated as essential.

Only a god can save us: the Spiegel interview (1966)

David KOLB - 1990 - University of Chicago Press. Heidegger's Hölderlin and the Importance of Place. Stuart Elden - 1999 - Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 30 (3):258-274. The Deconstructed Ethics of Martin Heidegger, or, the University Sous Rature. Chris Peers - 2021 - …Buy the book: Find it on Amazon.com

Martin Heidegger - Der Spiegel Interview 1966 (English …

Dec 31, 2014 · This is the famous "Der Spiegel Interview" from 1966 in which Heidegger discusses the current crisis of nihilism and his rejection of some kind of fusion of East and West. A return to, and a resuscitation of the Western Tradition is here anticipated as essential.

Martin Heidegger - Der Spiegel Rudolf Augstein and Georg Wolff, 23 September ; published May 31 SPIEGEL: Professor Heidegger, we have noticed again and again that your philosophical work is somewhat overshadowed by incidents in your life that, although they didn’t last very long, were never clarified, either because you were too proud or because you did not find it expedient to.

When these people came to talk to me, I turned them all away. Why not? HEIDEGGER : Let me say the following about that: The accusation that I had broken off my relationship to Husserl is unfounded. My wife wrote a letter in both our names to Frau Husserl in May Frau Husserl answered briefly in a formal "thank you" note and wrote that the relations between our families were broken off.

I apologized for it later in a letter to Frau Husserl. SPIEGEL : Husserl died in You had already resigned from the rectorate in February How did that come about? HEIDEGGER : I will have to expand somewhat on that. My intention at the time was to overcome the technical organization of the university; that is, to renew the faculties from the inside, from the point of view of their scholarly tasks.

Thus Professor Erik Wolf became dean of the law school, Professor Schadewaldt dean of the faculty of philosophy, Professor Soergel dean of the faculty of natural sciences, Professor von Möllendorff, who had been dismissed as rector in the spring, dean of the medical school. But around Christmas it was already clear to me that I would not be able to carry out my intention of renewing the university against the opposition of both colleagues and the Party. I refused to do this, and said I would resign from the rectorate if the minister insisted on his demand.

That is what happened in February While the domestic and foreign press commented on the assumption of office in various ways, they were silent about my resignation.

SPIEGEL : Did you negotiate with Reich Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust at the time? HEIDEGGER : At what time? SPIEGEL : In , Rust made a trip here to Freiburg that is still talked about. HEIDEGGER : We are dealing with two different events. Otherwise the minister took no notice of me. At that point I did not try to have a conversation with him. The conversation took place in November on the occasion of a rectorial conference in Berlin. I presented my views on science and the possible structure of the faculties to the minister.

He listened so attentively to everything that I harbored the hope that what I had presented might have an effect. But nothing happened. I do not see why I am reproached for this discussion with the Reich Minister of Education while at the same time all the foreign governments rushed to recognize Hitler and to show him the customary international courtesies. SPIEGEL : I-low did your relationship to the NSDAP develop after you had resigned as rector?

HEIDEGGER : After I resigned from the rectorate, I retreated back to my task as teacher. The lectures on Nietzsche began in All of those who could hear heard that this was a confrontation with National Socialism.

SPIEGEL : How did the transfer of office take place? HEIDEGGER : Yes, I refused to take part in the ceremony of the change of rectors. HEIDEGGER : I was constantly under surveillance.

SPIEGEL : Do you have an example of that? HEIDEGGER : Yes, the case of Dr. SPIEGEL : How did you find out about that? HEIDEGGER : Because he came to me himself. He had been sent here to Freiburg by the SD Sicherheitsdienst ; Security Service to keep me under surveillance.

SPIEGEL : Why did he suddenly come to you? HEIDEGGER : Because of my seminar on Nietszche in the summer semester of and because of the way in which work was done in the seminar, he confessed to me that he could not continue with the task of surveillance assigned to him. He wanted to inform me of this situation in view of my future activity as a teacher.

SPIEGEL : Otherwise you had no difficulties with the Party? Those who are interested should read the polemics against me that started up in the summer of in E.

I neither belonged to the German delegation to the international philosophy conference in Prague in nor was I even invited to participate. I was also supposed to have been excluded from the international Descartes conference in Paris in I answered that the organizers of the conference should inquire at the Reich Ministry of Education about this case.

After a while, I received an invitation from Berlin to belatedly join the delegation. Shortly after , the rectoral address was taken off the market at the instigation of the Party. SPIEGEL : In , when the war On the contrary, in the summer of I was ordered to dig trenches over near the Rhine, on the Kaiserstuhl.

SPIEGEL : On the other side, the Swiss side, Karl Barth dug trenches. HEIDEGGER : The way in which it happened is interesting. The rector had called the entire faculty into the Lecture Hall.

He gave a short speech to the effect that what he would now say was in agreement with the National Socialist district leader and the National Socialist Gauleiter leader. He would now divide the entire faculty into three groups: first those who were completely dispensable, second those who were partially dispensable, and third those who were indispensable.

First on the list of the completely dispensable came Heidegger, later G. It is well known. HEIDEGGER : Actually, the events themselves are not known. It is not a very nice affair. SPIEGEL : Unless you would like to say something about them. HEIDEGGER : No. SPIEGEL : Perhaps we might summarize.

As an un-political person, in its narrow sense, not in its broader sense, you got caught up in the politics of this supposed new departure in HEIDEGGER SPIEGEL After about a year, you gave up the function again that you had assumed in this process. HEIDEGGER : It was in my manuscript and corresponded exactly to my conception of technology at the time, but not yet to my later interpretation of the essence of technology as construct Gestell.

SPIEGEL : Surely you would classify the Communist movement in that way as well? HEIDEGGER : Yes, absolutely, as determined by planetary technology. SPIEGEL : Perhaps you would classify the sum of American endeavors in that way, too? HEIDEGGER : I would say that as well. During the past thirty years, it should meanwhile have become clearer that the planetary movement of modern technology is a power whose great role in determining history can hardly be overestimated.

I have no answer to this question. I am not convinced that it is democracy. SPIEGEL : Democracy is merely a collective term that can encompass very different conceptions.

The question is whether a trans-formation of this political form is still possible. I think that behind them there is an idea that technology is in its essence something human beings have under their control. In my opinion, that is not possible. Technology is in its essence something that human beings cannot master of their own accord. But I do see a decisive question here.

Is it not somewhat too pessimistic to say that we will not be able to master this certainly much greater tool of modern technology? HEIDEGGER : Pessimism, no. Pessimism and optimism are positions that fall too short of the realm we are attempting to reflect upon here. SPIEGEL : Why should we be so overpowered by technology? HEIDEGGER : I do not say overpowered. I say we have no path that corresponds to the essence of technology as of yet.

Everything functions. Production is flourishing. People in the highly technological parts of the earth are well provided for. We live in prosperity. What is really missing here?

HEIDEGGER : Everything functions. That is exactly what is uncanny. We only have purely technological conditions left. It is no longer an earth on which human beings live today. Rocket bases are being built in Provence, and the country is being devastated in an incredible way. The poet, who certainly cannot be suspected of sentimentality or a glorification of the idyllic, said to me that the uprooting of human beings who is going on now is the end if thinking and poetry do not acquire nonviolent power once again.

It is conceivable that human beings have no destiny at all. But at any rate a possibility for human beings could be seen in that they reach out from this earth to other planets. It will certainly not happen for a long time. HEIDEGGER : From our human experience and history, at least as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition.

SPIEGEL : We are bothered by the word destructive here because the word nihilistic received a very broad context of meaning precisely through you and your philosophy.

It astonishes us to hear the word destructive in connection with literature you could or ought to see as a part of this nihilism.

HEIDEGGER : I would like to say that the literature I meant is not nihilistic in the way that I defined nihilism. HEIDEGGER : Yes! But it is precisely the technological state that least corresponds to the world and society determined by the essence of technology. SPIEGEL : Fine. But now the question of course poses itself: "Can the individual still influence this network of inevitabilities at all, or can philosophy influence it, or can they both influence it together in that philosophy leads one individual or several individuals to a certain action?

If I may answer quickly and perhaps somewhat vehemently, but from long reflection: Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors.

Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.

SPIEGEL : Is there a connection between your thinking and the emergence of this god? Is there, as you see it, a causal connection? Do you think we can get this god to come by thinking?

HEIDEGGER : We cannot get him to come by thinking. At best we can prepare the readiness of expectation. SPIEGEL : But can we help? HEIDEGGER : The preparation of readiness could be the first step. The world cannot be what and how it is through human beings, but neither can it be so without human beings. Being is not Being without humans being needed for its revelation, protection, and structuring.

I see the essence of technology in what I call the construct. The workings of the construct mean: Human beings are caught gestellt , claimed, and challenged by a power that is revealed in the essence of technology. The experience that humans are structured gestellt by some-thing that they are not themselves and that they cannot control themselves is precisely the experience that may show them the possibility of the insight that humans are needed by Being.

Just thinking of Germans, great names like Kant, Hegel, up to Nietzsche, not to mention Marx, it can be proved that philosophy has had, in roundabout ways, an enormous effect. Do you think this effectiveness of philosophy is at an end? And when you say philosophy is dead, that it no longer exists are you including the idea that the effectiveness of philosophy if indeed it ever existed today, at least, no longer exists?

HEIDEGGER : I just said that an indirect, but not a direct, effect is possible through another kind of thinking. Thus thinking can, as it were, causally change the condition of the world. SPIEGEL : Please excuse us; we do not want to philosophize we are not up to that , but here we have the link between politics and philosophy, so please forgive us for pushing you into such a conversation.

You just said philosophy and the individual could do nothing except A contemplation of what is today is a part of a preparation of the readiness we have been talking about. SPIEGEL : But then there really would have to be the famous impetus from outside, from a god or whomever.

So thinking, of its own accord and self sufficiently, can no longer be effective today? It was, in the opinion of people in the past, and even, I believe, in our opinion. HEIDEGGER : But not directly. SPIEGEL : We have already named Kant, Hegel, and Marx as great movers.

HEIDEGGER : No longer in the sense of philosophy. The role philosophy has played up to now has been taken over by the sciences today. For this, careful differentiations need to be made between cause, impulse, support, assistance, hindrance, and cooperation. But we can only gain the appropriate dimension to make these differentiations if we have sufficiently discussed the principle of sufficient reason. Philosophy dissolves into the individual sciences: psychology, logic, and political science.

SPIEGEL : And what takes the place of philosophy now? HEIDEGGER : Cybernetics. SPIEGEL : Or the pious one who remains open? HEIDEGGER : But that is no longer philosophy. SPIEGEL : What is it then? HEIDEGGER : I call it the other thinking. SPIEGEL : You call it the other thinking. HEIDEGGER : Has ended but has not become for us invalid; rather it is again present in conversation. My whole work in lectures and seminars during the past thirty years has been mainly simply an interpretation of Western philosophy.

Do you mean to say that only very few people can have the insights that are, in your opinion, possible and necessary? SPIEGEL : Yes, but in the conversation with the Buddhist, you did not clearly describe how it can be realized. HEIDEGGER : I cannot make it clear. But because we do not live three hundred years from now, but here and now, we are denied silence. We, politicians, semi-politicians, citizens, journalists, et cetera, we constantly have to make some sort of decision or other.

We must adapt ourselves to the system under which we live, must try to change it, must watch for the narrow door to reform and for the still narrower door to revolution. We expect help from the philosopher, even if, of course, only indirect help, help in roundabout ways. And now we hear: I cannot help you. HEIDEGGER : I cannot.

SPIEGEL : That has to discourage the non-philosopher. HEIDEGGER : I cannot because the questions are so difficult that it would be contrary to the meaning of this task of thinking to make public appearances, to preach, and to distribute moral grades.

Perhaps I may risk this statement: The secret of the planetary predominance of the un-thought essence of technology corresponds to the preliminariness and inconspicuousness of the thinking that attempts to reflect upon this un-thought essence. SPIEGEL : You do not count yourself among those who, if they would only be heard, could point out a path? HEIDEGGER : No! I know of no path toward a direct change of the present state of the world, assuming that such a change is at all humanly possible.

But it seems to me that the attempted thinking could awaken, clarify, and fortify the readiness we have already mentioned. SPIEGEL : A clear answer. But just wait, something will occur to us in the next three hundred years? HEIDEGGER : It is not a matter of simply waiting until something occurs to human beings after three hundred years have gone by; it is about thinking ahead, without prophetic claims, into the coming time from the standpoint of the fundamental characteristics of the present age, which have hardly been thought through.

It seems to me that the distinction, stemming from metaphysics, made between theory and praxis, and the conception of a transmission between the two, obstructs the path toward insight into what I understand to be thinking. Perhaps I may refer here to my lectures that were published in with the title What Is Called Thinking? SPIEGEL : It has, of course, always been a misunderstanding of philosophy to think that the philosopher should have some direct effect with his philosophy.

Let us return to the beginning. HEIDEGGER : I would not say that. It seems to me that you take technology too absolutely. I do not think the situation of human beings in the world of planetary technology is an inextricable and inescapable disastrous fate; rather I think that the task of thinking is precisely to help, within its bounds, human beings to attain an adequate relationship to the essence of technology at all. Although National Socialism went in that direction, those people were much too limited in their thinking to gain a really explicit relationship to what is happening today and what has been under way for three centuries.

SPIEGEL : This explicit relationship, do the Americans have it today? HEIDEGGER : They do not have it either. They are still entangled in a way of thinking; Pragmatism that fosters technological operating and manipulating but simultaneously blocks the path toward a contemplation of what is characteristic of modern technology.

In the meantime, attempts to break away from pragmatic-positivistic thinking are being made here and there in the USA. SPIEGEL : If no one has one and the philosopher cannot give one to them HEIDEGGER : It is not for me to decide how far I will get with my attempt at thinking and in which way it will be received and productively transformed in the future.

I attempted to show that it may go so far as opening up the possibility that human beings of the technological age experience the relationship to a demand that they can not only hear but to which they also belong. But I do not think Hölderlin is just any poet, whose work is a subject, among many others, for literary historians.

Will we be able to understand this sign, this question mark? One thing is certain: If we do not understand it, history will take its revenge on us. We estimate that it was It could also have been said in the years that followed. It leads us away from generalities to a specific destiny of the Germans.

HEIDEGGER : I could put what is said in the quotation this way: I am convinced that a change can only be prepared from the same place in the world where the modern technological world originated. It cannot come about by the adoption of Zen Buddhism or other Eastern experiences of the world. The help of the European tradition and a new appropriation of that tradition are needed for a change in thinking.

Thinking will only be transformed by a thinking that has the same origin and destiny. SPIEGEL : At exactly the spot where the technological world originated, it must, you think SPIEGEL : Do you allocate a special task specifically to the Germans? HEIDEGGER : Yes, in that sense, in dialogue with Hölderlin. SPIEGEL : Do you think that the Germans have a specific qualification for this change?

HEIDEGGER : I am thinking of the special inner relationship between the German language and the language and thinking of the Greeks. This has been confirmed to me again and again today by the French. When they begin to think they speak German. They insist that they could not get through with their own language. SPIEGEL : Is that how you would explain the very strong effect you have had in the Romance countries, particularly in France?

Thinking can be translated as little as poetry can. At best it can be paraphrased. As soon as a literal translation is attempted, everything is transformed. SPIEGEL : A disquieting thought.

HEIDEGGER : It would be good if this disquiet would be taken seriously on a large scale and if it would finally be considered what a momentous transformation Greek thinking suffered when it was translated into Roman Latin, an event that still bars our way today to sufficient reflection on the fundamental words of Greek thinking.

SPIEGEL : Professor, we would actually always optimistically assume that something could be communicated and even translated, because if this optimism that contents of thinking can be communicated despite language barriers ceases, then provincialism threatens. HEIDEGGER : Would you call Greek thinking provincial in contrast to the mode of ideas of the Roman Empire? Business letters can be translated into all languages. We are touching here on an area that is broad and hard to cover. SPIEGEL : Perhaps this belongs to this topic, too: At present there is, without exaggerating, a crisis of the democratic-parliamentary system.

There has been one for a long time. There is one particularly in Germany, but not only in Germany. There is one in the classical countries of democracy, in England and America. Now, a question: Can thinkers not give advice, even as by-products of thinking, that either this system must be replaced by a new one, and what it should look like, or that reform must be possible, and advice on how reform could be possible?

So: Should the philosopher not be ready to think about how human beings can arrange living together in this world, which they have technologized themselves and which has perhaps overpowered them? Is it not rightly expected of the philosopher that he give advice on what he considers possible ways of living?

Does the philosopher not fall short of a part, even if it is a small part, of his profession and his calling if he communicates nothing about it? HEIDEGGER : As far as I can see, an individual is incapable of comprehending the world as a whole through thinking to the extent that he could give practical instructions, particularly in the face of the task of first finding a base for thinking itself again.

As long as it takes itself seriously with view to the great tradition, thinking is overtaxed if it must prepare itself to give instructions. On what authority could this happen? In the realm of thinking, there are no authoritative statements. The only stipulation for thinking comes from the matter that is to be thought. This is, however, what is above all worthy of questioning. The difficult situation in which thinking is placed with view to its own task thus corresponds to an alienation, fed by the powerful position of the sciences, from a thinking that must deny itself answering practical and ideological questions demanded by the day.

SPIEGEL : Professor, in the realm of thinking there are no authoritative statements. Thus it cannot really be surprising that modern art has a difficult time making authoritative statements, too. Its works are attempts You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email.

Skip to content This passage was taken from p. Like this: Like Loading Heidegger Der Spiegel Interview

Martin Heidegger, Only a god can save us: the Spiegel interview (1966…

Only a god can save us: the Spiegel interview (1966) Martin Heidegger. In Thomas Sheehan (ed.), Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker. Transaction Publishers. pp. 62 (1981) ... Heidegger's Hölderlin and the Importance of Place. Stuart Elden - 1999 - Journal of …

Dec 31,  · This is the famous "Der Spiegel Interview" from in which Heidegger discusses the current crisis of nihilism and his rejection of some kind of fusion of East and West. A return to, and a resuscitation of the Western Tradition is here anticipated as essential. Only a god can save us: the Spiegel interview () Martin Heidegger. In Thomas Sheehan (ed.), Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker. Transaction Publishers. pp. 62 () Heidegger's Hölderlin and the Importance of Place. Stuart Elden - - Journal of . Der Spiegel interview. On 23 September , Heidegger was 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.

An open discussion on systems

With a focus on the question of visuality in Heidegger's sustained involvement with Daoist and Zen thought, this paper discusses the interchange between Heidegger Piper Perry Anal Hisamatsu at a colloquium. In conclusion, it addresses the opening for a philosophical consideration of abstract painting that these analyses provide. This is a preview of subscription content, Inyerview via your institution.

Rent this article via DeepDyve. I wish to acknowledge Jennifer Anna Gosetti's insightful commentary on the Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 paper, which I presented Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 the Heidegger Conference meeting. I have learned much from her commentary which stresses the complex indecidability of listening and visuality for Heidegger, with particular reference to the short texts collected in vol. This edition will henceforth be referred to as GA.

Google Scholar. Alcopley, ed. This book was published in a Imterview edition of copies. It will here be referred to as HH.

I am thankful to Professor Miles Heiedgger for the information that L. Alcopley was the nom de plume or Spegel pinceau? Copley, whom he describes as a New York biotheorist and artist, and whom he had the good fortune Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 to meet. He also informs me that Heidegger's contribution to the colloquium is reprinted in Hartmund Buchner, ed. Although the text of HH is trilingual throughout German with Japanese and English translationsI have made my own translations from the German.

In Interviee, translations from the German, unless otherwise acknowledged, are my own. From a letter by Heidegger to Alcopley undatedon the occasion of the publication of Einsichtena book of poems by S. Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966, with drawings by Alcopley, dedicated to Heidegger on his Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 birthday Freiburg: Eberhard, The letter is reproduced, in part and in facsimile, in HH.

On Heidegger's relationships with Japanese Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966, see also Graham Parkes. London: Routledge,pp. Inteerview should be evident to the reader that Parkes, as author, editor, and translator, Spoegel the pioneer in this Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 uncharted area of scholarship. In this study, I give Japanese names in traditional order surname preceding the given name ; but I use the reverse Westernized order Spiegrl citations in the Notes.

See also Pöggeler's further discussion of this interrelation in his The Paths of Heideggger 's Life and Thought, John Bailiff, trans.

Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press,Spievel. I am grateful to Amina Sharma for bringing this book Heidsgger my attention by making me a gift of it. Heidegger, ParmenidesGA 54, I leave out of Hentai Pokemon Vids Heidegger's diatribe against the typewriter, Tombe Ouverte has probably already done enough to Gardevoir Bikini the importance Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 his discussion of writing.

Download references. Department of Philosophy, The Pennsylvania State University, Sparks Building, University Park, PA,USA.

Reprints and Permissions. Interbiew and 'The Way of Art:' the empty origin Elisa Film Stream contemporary abstraction. Continental Philosophy Review 31, — Download citation. Issue Date : October Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Abstract With a focus on the question of visuality in Heidegger's sustained involvement with Daoist and Zen thought, this paper discusses the interchange between Heidegger Spiegel Interview 1966 and Hisamatsu at a colloquium. Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. Immediate online access to all issues from Subscription will auto renew annually.

References 1. Google Scholar 2. Google Scholar 7. GA 53; see sections 9 and 21— GA 5, 49f. GA 5, Google Scholar GA 54, 19666 Rights and permissions Reprints and Permissions.

Copy to clipboard.