sign in sign up
<<
Home , Martin Heidegger, Nicolai Hartmann, Paul Natorp

(Originally Published in Today, Swnmer 1979, Pages 160-169) (© 1979 by the Messenger Press. Reprinted by Permission) REMEMBRANCES OF IN

elisabeth hirsch

According to Heidegger's own bered houses and the castle on a hill, words the years of his teaching career Marburg exuded a romantic· atmos­ he enjoyed most were those in Marburg phere. In addition, in a few minutes from 1923-1928. These were also the one was deep in and so Hei­ best years of the . The degger could enjoy his customary af­ German mark was stabilized, the econ­ ternoon walks. If one was lucky to omy greatly improved and the cultural meet him, he would always stop for life reached a high point. Dance, , a short talk. theater, the visual and Today Marburg has 1;),000 students flourished as never before and created and half of them are Communists. But an atmosphere of excitement among when Heidegger was there, Marburg young people. And the immensely pro­ had only 3,000 students; their contact ductive intellectual and artistic actiY­ with thl' was close. Marburg ity did not fail to have an impact on was rather notorious for hE'r many the academic community. The French dueling fraternities; the students be­ writer Paul Duhamel was greatly im­ lansing to them were mostly conserva­ pressed by the German universities. In tiYes in politics. In opposition to them a lecture he delivered at Marburg Uni­ the liberal students founded the aca­ versity he remarked: "There are said demic association; if my memory is to be seven wonders but the Ger­ correct, Heidegger attended some of man universities must be added as the its meetings. eighth." At the Marburg University Marburg's rural setting pleased had a nation-wide reputation for its Heidegger. The town is situated at the Neokantian school and the department river Lahn and is surrounded by the of religion which counted among its Lahn mountains. With its winding nar­ professors several noted theologians. In row streets, the old fountains, half-tim­ the light of Heidegger's interests in REMEMBRANCES OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER IN MARBURG the twenties, his appointment as a pro­ of some importance to note that Hei­ fessor at the University was an im­ degger, although he agreed with Hart­ portant period in his career. It was mann on the strict separation of psy­ , the famous representative chology and philosophy, quoted Spran­ of the Neokantian school, who was in­ ger in Sein und Zeit in support of his strumental in bringing Heidegger · to view as to the "constitution of histori­ Marburg. It is sometimes said that cal ".' It is characteristic after the first World War students were of Heidegger then and later that criti­ bored with the way philosophy was cism did not make him blind to an taught at the universities and that Hus­ author's achievement in respects. ser! and Phenomenology provided the I remember that Heidegger was quite answer to what many students were unhappy about the misunderstanding looking for. On the other hand, the his "destruction of " cre­ Neokantian school, dependent on its ated among his colleagues. During a re!fresentative, had much inspiration to conversation he remarked that "critique offer. Paul Natorp, for instance, had is always also admiration". (Kritik the temperament of a true schliesst immer Verehrung ein). On the and attracted many students. I am not occasion of a seminar Heidegger con­ surprised that he and Heidegger were ducted at Zollikon he elucidated his in close contact.' vievv· of critique: "Criticism" he stated At a progressive Gymnasium in "is derived from the Greek word krinein I had a in philosophy that is to differentiate, to contrast with. who had studied with Natorp. He im­ Genuine criticism is different from crit­ bued us with an enthusiasm for philos­ icizing in the sense of finding fault with, ophy which he had experienced as a of disapproving and carping. Criticism student with Natorp. At a relatively (as an act) of differentiating means to young age I had become a great ad­ show the different as such in its differ­ mirer of Kant. Since phenomenology entiation. What is different is this. only in Freiburg where I spent my first in as far as it is different in one respect. semester had somewhat disappointed Consequently, we see first the same: me, I decided to spend the summer the latter and that which is differenti­ semester 1925 at Marburg. Unfortun­ ated from it belong together. Any in­ ately, Natorp had already died the year vestigation must direct the eye to the before and now rep­ same. In other words, genuine criticism resented the Neokantian school. I took as this kind of showing is eminently a course in and a seminar positive. And genuine criticism is on Kant with him. When I registered rare."' A case in point is Ernst Cas­ for the seminar Hartmann asked what sirer, a product of the Marburg school I had done during the winter semester who had studied with Paul Natorp. In in Berlin. I told him that I had taken his review of Cassirer's Mythical Eduard Spranger's seminar for begin­ Heidegger is quite critical of ners where we read Kant's two Cri­ Cassirer's failures to relate myth to tiques. He looked at me with a good . He nevertheless recognized Cas. deal of doubt and remarked rather iron­ sirer's "first attempt since Schelling to ically: "And you think you will hear place myth as a systematic problem the same here?" Spranger was a noted within the range of philosophy."• psychologist and thus Hartman objected In the recently published second to his intrusion into philosophy. It is edition of ' Autobiographie

337 PHILOSOPHY ToDAY, SuMMER 1979

nineteen pages of references to Heideg­ in kind telling him: "You are instead ger previously left out are now included. traditional in your factional philoso­ Jaspers tells of a conversation with Hei­ phy.',. degger in the course of which he ex­ During the ten years he worked on pressed his surprise that "The dedica­ Sein und Zeit Heidegger felt quite close tion of Heidegger's first book to Ri­ to .' They shared a criti­ ckert, of his second to Husser!, em­ cism of the Neokantian school because phasizes a connection with people of in the words of Scheler, "it is a thinking whom he had spoken to me with con­ that creates objects in accord with the tempt." "He pretended" Jaspers con­ inner rules of the ."' Like Heideg­ tinued "to belong to a tractional world ger Scheler differentiates between the from which we had set ourselves task of philosophy and the task of the apart."' The use of the word contempt sciences: The former raises the ques­ rna::: well be a misnomer; it is quite tion of the fundament (Grund) of all possible, however, that Heidegger made that is, the latter explains nature and some derogatory remarks in regard to events with the help of Jaws.' More certain aspects of their respective phi­ important still Heidegger's of losophies with which he disagreed. In Dasein--in-the-world and with oth­ addition, it is not justified to refer, as er human corresponds in Schel­ Jaspers did, to Rickert and Husser! in er's philosophy to the of a per­ one breath. The dedication of Die son, that is the whole concrete man as Kategorien ..und Bedeutungslehre des a feeling, acting, loving and thinking to Rickert is of 1916, the being in his relation to "world" and one of Sein und Zeit of 1927. Much had other people. In Sein und Zeit Heideg­ happened between 1916 and 1927. Hei­ ger quotes Scheler in support of his degger could have countered Jaspers' view that a person's acts are not the reproach with calling his attention to of a science (); they the fact that what was true in 1916 have to be seen in the context of a was not necessarily true in 1927 and whole person's being.'• later. I remember quite vividly that Although Heidegger had doubts during my years at Marburg Heidegger about the possibility of a philosophical was quite outspoken in his opposition to anthropology which according to him any philosophy be it Rickert's or had been Scheler's goal for years, he Hartmann's. Phenomenology, on the recognized the great contributions other hand, remained an important in­ Scheler had made to philosophy. When fluence throughout Heidegger's career. Max Scheler died in 1928 Heidegger Furthermore Heidegger may have gave a short speech remembering his avoided the issue Jaspers had raised great colleague before he started his because of a strong dislike to give an lecture course. The final words .which account of his intellectual background said so much in their utter simplicity and his personal or professional rela­ are still alive in my memory: Ein Licht tionships. (It was for this Hei­ ist au8gegangen. (A light has gone degger told me that he declined Profes­ out.)" sor Schilpp's suggestion to publish a In contrast to his relationship with volume dealing with his philosophy in Scheler, Heidegger had Jess in common The Library of Living Philosaphers.) with Nicolai Hartmann. The latter Instead of defending himself against had somewhat loosened the scientifical­ Jaspers' reproach Heidegger answered ly oriented Neokantian position in that

338 REMEMBRANCES OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER IN MARBURG he admitted the importance of "emo­ uon the positive sciences.HJG In Der tional" transcendental acts and dis­ Satz vom Grund (1957) Heidegger tinguished between layers of entities refers to Hartmann's and others mis­ from to spirit to which various understanding of the basic stance taken categories applied. But for all that he in Sein und Zeit. "Understanding of did not overcome the -object di­ Being means here," he asserts, "that chotomy. In Foundaticm of man as a subject never possesses a (Zur Grunlllegung der Ontologie) we subjective of Being and that read: ". . . Here the question is the Being is a mere perception. With this basic phenomenon of all knowledge: the Nicolai Hartmann and many contem­ being in itself of the object has its poraries have tried to make the start­ cause not only in the of what ing point of Sein und Zeit understand­ knowledge as relation means, rather able to themselves."" Furthermore, all knowledge, the most naive included, Heidegger could not accept Hartmann's already knows the being-in-itself of the definition of values which he claimed object and understands it from the be­ "subsist independently of ginning as an entity independent of it."" of them" ... "Hence, concerning the Hartmann also taught that not all en­ characteristics which values have, the tities need to become objects; on this proposition holds good that they have basis he rejected the notion of · phe­ self-.'' 1s nomenon since "it presupposes that it belongs to (the character of) all en­ Nicolai Hartmann left Marburg in tities that they show themselves."" A the Fall of 1925. For the following similar misunderstanding prevails in semester Heidegger announced a lec­ Hartmann's interpretation of Heideg­ ture course with the title: Phenomeno­ ger's concept of an entity being ready­ logical Interpretation of Kant's Cri­ at-hand. "It could appear" he claimed tiqlte of Pure Reason. It was clear that "that the entity is an object with which Heidegger wanted to distinguish his we have dealings (Umgangsgegen­ Kant interpretation from the Neokan­ stand), ready-at-hand . . . Moreover, tians. Heidegger repeated the course the disadvantage of the relation as in 1927-28 when I took it. Despite my ready-at-hand over against the relation completely different background, the as knowledge is manifest; not every­ way Heidegger dealt with the Critique thing that 'is' can become an object fascinated me. What was the reason? for our use; but everything that 'iS' Compared to Nicolai Hartmann, Hei­ can ... at least in ... become degger was not what you would call an object of knowledge.'"' an accomplished lecturer. Whereas Hartmann was fully aware of the im­ Already in Sein und Zeit Heideg­ pact he made on his audience, Heideg­ ger took exception to Hartmann's (and ger's contact with the students rested Scheler's) "ontologically oriented the­ on more subtle means. ory of knowledge.'' He claimed "that 'ontology' in its traditional fundamental Unassuming as Heidegger's physi­ orientation fails over against Dasein."" cal presence was, the power of his in­ In the second edition (not the first!) tellect Impressed the students immedi­ of Kant and the Problem of Metaphys­ ately. Heidegger developed his theme ics ( 1951) he reproaches Hartmann clearly - although not without de­ with interpreting Kant in terms of a tours; an intensity in his voice betrayed "theory of " that is based an inner passion that called for full

339 PHILOSOPHY TODAY, SUMMER 1979

attention. Nicolai Hartmann was an I took several seminars with Hei­ interesting lecturer too, but Heidegger's degger which were equally exciting al­ method had the greater appeal. He though by no means easy. We would allowed us as it were into read a text and discuss it sentence by the philosopher's work-shop. We were sentence. Heidegger's most valued qual­ completely captured by his step by ity was that he would listen to the step interpretation of the Critique. It student with patience and interest. He made us participate in Kant's thinking­ thus practiced what he said in Sein process, a procedure we had not known mui Zeit, that one must listen before before. Furthermore, Heidegger pre­ he speaks. It was a characteristic of sented the Critique not in abstract terms Heidegger not only as a teacher but in as a quesetion of knowledge of objects conversations outside the classroom. but as a concrete problem of man's My later when I visited relation to the world. It made sense Heidegger quite often in his in - that a finite being, existing in a world Freiburg confirm this. Heidegger was not of his making, must receive phe­ certainly not a conversationalist who nomena through the of space would ovetwhelm you with an easy and time. It was also the ground on flow of words. In serious discussions which Kant defined reason as tran­ he carefully weighed his words; even scendental, that is the activity of the in lighter moments of conversations mind is a response to given entities. the dialogue proceeded leisurely. It is in the last analysis, according to Hei­ interesting to note that Jaspers in his degger, both and thinking A utobiographie mentions the same fact. spring from the transcendental imagina­ "In our dialogues it was I who mostly tion which has the character of both talked. Heidegger's personality - in­ spontaneity and receptivity. In several clined to silence - induced me occa­ important writings Heidegger later re­ sionally to speak too much ..."''' Hei­ vised this Kant interpretation." But degger had a genuine interest in young this is not the issue here. For those people and nodded approval if an an­ young students who had an affinity with swer was to the point. As I recall, his thinking - this must of course his criticism was never devastating. be presupposed - he was entirely con­ When I took my first seminar with vincing. Heidegger 'in 1926 we read J. H. Droy. After Heidegger had accepted a sen's Historik. Droysen was a prede­ chair at Freiburg University, Erich cessor of Dilthey in elaborating the Franck, a Neokantian philosopher, was hermeneutic method. Heidegger quotes called to Marburg. For the State exam­ him in the essay Der Zeitbegritf i11 dm· ination, which entitled one to become Geschichtswissenschaft (The Concept of a professor at the Gymnasium, I was Time in History as a Science): "Per­ examined by Franck. (For my oral haps the greatest merit of the critical doctoral examination Heidegger had school in the historical sciences," Dray­ discussed with me Kant's concept of sen asserted, "at least the most signifi­ imagination.) Franck asked a question cant in regard to methods, is, to have about Kant and when I answered ac­ finally made it clear that the founda­ cording to what I had learned from tion of our studies is the examination Heidegger, he corrected me. But I of sources from whic)l we learn. There­ summoned the courage to say that the with the relation of history to the past opinion was nonetheless held. has reached the point which is scientifi­

340 REMEMBRANCES OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER IN MARBURG cally important."" Droysen was also ment the sources of both the historic of interest to Heidegger because he had past and its interpretation. published a biography of Yorck von Although Heidegger made sure Wartenburg, whose correspondence with that we understood the author, Droysen Dilthey Heidegger discussed in Sein also served as a springboard to intro­ und Zeit. duce us to some of his own philosophi­ From some marginal notes to the cal views. We had for example a lively text, which is still in my possession, I discussion of historic , Heidegger can recall some of Heidegger's com­ leading us to see it as a problem in her­ ments. Droysen defined history as the meneutics and stressing the correlation constant increase of the ethical world, between truth and . Like the an assumption Heidegger did not share lecture course on Kant the seminar on and which, in his view, lacked any Droysen prepared us for Sein und Zeit. proof." 'l):le historic fact, Droysen I was fortunate to have been in­ maintained, is that which remains from cluded in a group of students whom the past and its happenings." Heide'gger Heidegger invited to his house to dis­ gave us his own formulation to the cuss phenomenology every other Sunday effect that the given, the mere "mater­ during a semester. I recall that Frau ial," is mediated by the . Heidegger would always start the ses­ sion with the reading of some poetry. Droysen further stated that the single Rilke whom I admired very much is expression must be seen as an expres­ still alive in my memory as one of the sion of the inner man; it is a con­ poets we listened to. The purpose of clusion aposteriori from this inner cen­ the discussions however was not Hus­ ter. Heidegger challenged this psycho­ serl's phenomenology but rather Hei­ logical interpretation of a statement degger's development of phenomenology claiming that any utterance is evident in Sein und Zeit. The human condi­ in itself. For similar Heidegger tion presented in Sein und Zeit as Da­ rejected Droysen's distinction between sein-being-in-the-warld opened a new the "logical mechanism of understand­ dimension to philosophy. Academic phi­ ing and the act of understanding" losophy received a new look with the asserting that such a distinction is introduction of such as dread, concretely not possible. Droysen was death and conscience, which only few aware of the fact that the historian, as - among them Scheler ­ the observer of the past, is present in would allow in philosophy. One can­ the field of the observed but, as a Kan­ not measure the influence any writing tian, the primary source of any under­ of importance has on the mind. One standing and knowledge is for him the thing is certain: those of us who had subject. "The one who understands," read Sein und Zeit with great enthusi­ Droysen wrote, "because he is an ego, asm were saved from falling into the a totality in himself, like the one he trap of both .analytical thinking and has to understand, completes the to­ formal logic which are abstract and un­ tality of the latter from the single ut­ historical. terance and the single utterance from I can gather the impact Sein und his totality. The understanding is both Zeit had on me from a book review I synthetic and analytical as well as in­ wrote in 1935. It concerned the third ductive and deductive."" The human volume of Dunin Borkowski's Spinoza mind and will are in Droysen's judg­ which had just been published. After

341 PHILOSOPHY TODAY, SUMMER 1979

reference to Dilthey and Meinecke I with Heidegger about the meaning of said of Heidegger: "The philosophical Being he would sometimes look toward thinking of the present time presup­ the Zahringer Hills from the large win­ poses the (temporality) of dow of his study. The gesture said human existence. It is the great merit much: Beholding things "present", Be­ of Martin Heidegger to have raised ing speaks to us. This also explains the philosophical question of how all why Heidegger calls thinking a thank­ human existence is intimately bound ing for what Being brings into the up with the course of "historical" open." In the same note to the section events. . . From this follows, also for Zeit und Sein Heidegger further states: the past-oriented historian, that he "Die Uberwindung des Horizontes al8 must conceive the past in its temporal solchem" (The overcoming of the hori­ setting, a process that includes the son as such), "Die Umkehr in die Her­ future." I still consider the temporality kunft" (the reversal to the Origin); and historicity of Dasein-being-in-the­ "Das Anwesen aus dieser Herkunft" world as the climax of Sein und Zeit. (The presence from this origin)." In It leads, moreover, directly to Heideg­ a note for an earlier page Heidegger ger's later work. Of course, the focus remarks: Sein des Seiendelf, Sinn der , ' of Sein und Zeit is Being, the Being Differenz" (Being of being; meaning of of a special being: Dasein. Although the )."" Being as presence and the ontological difference is not men­ Being as time appear together in the tioned in Sein und Zeit, in the recently e-vent (Ereignis)." This means Being published notes to it in the Gesamtan&­ manifests beings in epochal e-vents." gabe Heidegger mentions it twice." A If the concept of e-vent plays a consid­ third note is still of more interest here. erable role in the later Heidegger it is It occurs in connection with the division clearly related to the last part of Sein into sections of the two parts of Sein ttnd Zeit." I do not know how thor­ und Zeit. One section of the first part oughly Heidegger was acquainted with is called Zeit und Sein; in a note Hei­ the philosophy of Whitehead but he degger refers to "Die transcendenzhafte thought that Whitehead's philosophy of Differenz". (Difference combined with process which involves ever new cre­ trans<;endence.)" It seems to me that ations or "occasions" had an affinity to the ontological and "transcendenzhafte" his own thinking. Differenz must be seen together in or­ Another question that was recently der to give the former a concrete mean­ raised regarding Sein und Zeit is wheth­ ing. It is quite clear from his later er it had any political implications. Did writings that Heidegger was aware of Heidegger put so much stress on the the difficulty involved here. In Holzwege individual in order to make the point he states: "The clearing (Lichtung) of that in of decline the person the difference cannot mean that the must fall back on himself?" When we difference appears as the difference. read Sein und Zeit at the time of its "However, it is quite possible," Hei­ publication in 1927 we never saw in it degger continues, "that the presence as any political references. And this fits such (that is, what unconceals the pres­ with the Spiegel interview where Hei­ ent: Being), the relation to what is degger asserted that he was never po­ present, may manifest itself in such a litically active before 1933." The latter way that the presence becomes articu­ statement, moreover, is borne out by late as this relation."" When I talked the fact that in 1930 Adolf Grimme who

342 REMEMBRANCES OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER IN MARBURG was a religious socialist and Kultus­ I suspect, although it is hard to minister (secretary of ) of judge, that for Bultmann his relation­ Prussia, made several attempts to bring ship with Heidegger was more conse­ Heidegger to Berlin as Professor at the quential than vice versa. It is well university. He would not have written known that Bultmann applied the anal­ to him in most flattering words had he ysis of Dasein in Sein und Zeit to the­ thought of him as a critic of the Wei­ ology, especially the central concepts mar Republic." In addition, the decay of and historicity. The of the Republic and the disunity evi­ Biblical Word was for Bultmann, "a denced by the many parties was not yet possible way to understand my own visible in 1927 but only in 1930. existence." Against his critics he ex­ plained his position, claiming that the That Heidegger had such a positive Biblical hermeneutic like the interpre­ memory of Marburg is in part due to tation of any other text is rooted in a his close contact with the department particular situation or dependent on a or religion. Next to the Neokantian philosophical foundation. As a theolo­ school, the latter enjoyed a nationwide gian Bultmann could assert that the reputation. Among the theologians were believer discovered his authentic Dasein Hermelink, a church historian, HOlscher through faith in the Word." Faith is an Old Testament scholar, Rade an ex­ a rebirth like Dasein's "conversion" pert on Luther, and who to authenticity with the important dif­ was famous for a widely read book en­ ference that the latter in contrast to titled The Holy. It is of course well­ faith in revelation is an autonomous known that Heidegger had the closest resolve of the person. relationship with , the In his dialogue with Bultmann, Hei­ Protestant theologian. degger's main concern seems to have Heidegger had a strong religious been the relation between and background which included several se­ philosophy and not primarily theology mesters devoted to the study of theolo­ as such; this is indicated by the essay, gy. Even if he had not said so himself "Phenomenology and Theology" of for readers of Sein und Zeit and his 1927.•• One important focus of this later work, it is quite obvious "that essay is to show that whereas Dasein's without my theological background I existential of guilt is the "existential" would not have taken the path in phi­ ground for faith, the revealed God of losophy I did." Despite his Catholic Christianity can never be the subject upbringing, Heidegger's religious inter­ of philosophy. Heidegger expressed this ests soon focused beyond Augustine and thought thus: "Philosophy is the pos­ Eckhart on Luther and Kierkegaard. sible ontological oorrective which can The latter two theologians attracted formally point out the antic and, in Heidegger because they started their particlillrr, the pre-Christian content of reflection with a religious e:x:perience: basic theological concepts. But philos­ faith. And along this line Heidegger ophy can be what it is without functimb­ elsewhere remarked that he was reli­ i-ng factually as this corrective.""' gious without being interested in proofs It is quite obvious that a student's of the , that is, in meta­ ability to enter into Heidegger's think­ physical speculation. His acquaintance ing has its limitations but for all that with Protestant theology included Cal­ my enthusiasm for his philosophy was vin and Zwingli." unlimited. I had many lively discus­

343 PHILOSOPHY TODAY, SUMMER 1979

sions with fellow-students when we tried painter. Heidegger was fond of Braque to clear our own understanding in chal­ as a friend and artist and admired lenging the other's interpretation. Even among other works his non-abstract my history professor became the vic­ of large birds that seem to tim of my fervor and I often spoke to roam the universe. Heidegger enjoyed him about Heidegger. One day he jok­ the beautiful colors and the many imag­ ingly said to me: "You should go to inative paintings of Braque, , America and open a seminar on Hei­ and others. But he freely admitted that degger." (At that time I did not dream abstract artists had less appeal to him. that I would ever land on the shores Perhaps it is not as surprising as it of the United States.) sounds. Heidegger was fully immersed From my days at the Gymnasium in a world comprising both man and in Berlin I had developed a profound in­ things in a mutual relationship. From terest in all aspects of cultural activity. such a basis one could hardly expect Hj.'idegger's dedication to the arts found him to appreciate an -expression for an echo in many students. A friend of which the world existed in the image mine, of Columbia created by the artist. University, who was in Marburg in I would like to close my reminis­ 1926, often played the piano for Heideg­ cences with some lines Heidegger con­ ger in his home. Private discussion­ tributed to a volume by Rene Char in groups were always preceded, as I men­ memory of Georges Braque. "Die Ver­ tioned, by poetry readings. Marburg wandlung des Mannigfaltigen in die had a famous art department with a Einfalt ist jenes Abwesenlassen, wo­ rich collection of photographs of paint­ durch das Einfiiltige anwest, ings which should have been of interest Abwesen entbringt Anwesen, to Heidegger. When I visited Heidegger Tod erbringt Nahe." in his study in Freiburg there were always some art-pieces around. But The change of the manifold into the what caught not only Heidegger's eyes simple is to let be absent that which as often as he looked up, but the visitor's allows the simple to be present. as well, was a small of delicate­ Absence reveals presence, ly blue blossoms by Braque, the French Death brings nearness."

REFERENCES 1. This is reported by Walter Biemel, Heideg­ zusammengehOrt. Dieses Selbe muss bei jeder ger, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschen­ Untersuchung in den Blick gebracht werden. buch 1973, p. 33. Mit anderen Worten, echte Kritik ist als 2. P. 394 note dieses Sehenlassen etwas im eminenten Sinne 3. P. 2 "Kritik leitet sich her vom griechischen Positives. Deshalb ist echte Kritik selten." Wort krinein, das heisst: unterscheiden, ab­ 4. See the translation of the Review in The heben. Echte Kritik ist etwas anderes als PietY of Thinking. Essays by Martin Heideg­ kritisieren im Sinne von bem3.ngeln, tadeln und ger; trans., notes and commentary James nOrgeln. Kritik als Unterscheiden heisst : das G. Hart and John C. Maraldo. Bloomington: Verschiedene als solches in seiner Verschieden­ Indiana University 1976, p. 45. heit sehen lassen. Was verschieden ist, ist dies 5. P. 100. Professor POggeler has kindly made nur, sofem es in einer Hinsicht verschieden available to me a xerox-copy of the pages ist. In dieser Hinsicht erblicken wir zuvor referring to Heidegger. das selbe hinsichtlich dessen das Verschiedene 6. Ibid.

344 REMEMBRANCES OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER IN MARBURG

7. Sec below, note 11. schickes von Anwesenheit. Die Gabe von 8. See Max Scheler, Plrilosophische Welt.,._ Anwesen ist Eigentum des Ereignens. Sein schauu"i/ ed. Maria Scheler, Bern unci Miin­ verschwindet im Ereignis." chen: Francke 1968, p. 39: "Nein, sagt die 33. See the interesting study by Vincenzo Vitiello, Schule von Marburg: Erkennen ist ein den­ H eidegger: il nulla e Ia fondazione della sto­ kendes Erzeugen von Gegenstinden nach in­ ricita. Dalla Ub,.,;,.d""'' der MetaphyJik ineren Regeln des Denkens selbsL" alla Daseinanalyse. (Urbina: Argalia Editore 9. Ibid., p. 44. On Scheler see , 1967.) In our context it is noteworthy that Max Scheler. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Univer­ Vitiello connects the ontological difference sity Press, 1965, with temporality and historicity and considers 10. P. 47. the last part of Sein und Zeit the focal point II. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Plrilosophische Lehr­ of Heidegger's whole philosophy. jahre, (Frankfurt aM.: Vittorio Kloster­ 34. See Otto POggeler, Philosophie und Politik mann, p. 45) reports the end of the speech bei Heidegger. Freiburg: Karl Alber, 1972, in a different way: "Wieder einmal sinkt p. 16. ein Weg der Philosophic ins Dunkel." 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1965, p. 150. 35. See the translation of the interview in Phi­ 13. 1bid., p. 72. losophy Today, Winter 1976, p. 268 and p. 270: 14. Ibid., p. 73. "At that time (in 1930) I was completely 15. P. 208, note. taken up with the questions that are de­ 16. P. 16. veloped in (1927) and in 17. P. 146. the writings and lectures of the following years." 18. See , trans. Stanton Coit New York: Humanities Press, 1967, vol, 1, p, 218. 36. See Adolf Grimme (Briefe), Jetter of May 19. Compare for instance,. "Kants These iiber das 14, 1930~ p. 37. Grimme says he intends to send Sein" in: Wegmarken. Frankfurt a.M.: Klos­ Dr. Richter to Freiburg to discuss once more termann, 1967, pp. 273-307. with Heidegger the possibility of his coming 20. Op. cit., p. 94. to Berlin. "Welches Ergebnis die Unterhaltung 21. In Friihe Schriften. Frankfurt a.M.: Klos­ auch haben mag" Grimme continued "Sie termann, 1972, p. 370. wissen, sehr verehrter Herr Professor~ dass 2. See Johann Gustav Droysen, Historik. Halle: ich Ihre Entecheidungs-griinde vollauf wiir­ Niemeyer, 1925, p, 8. digen werde. So schmerzlich mir eine endgiil­ 23. Ibid. tige Absage auch sein wiirde, ich hitte wenig­ 24. Ibid., p. 10. stens das Gefiihl, nichts unversucht gelassen 25. Note a to p. 127 and note a to p. 304. zu haben, un diejenige philosophische Per­ 26. Note a to p. 53. sOnlichkeit fiir Berlin zu gewinnen, von der 27. Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann, 1952, pp. 336­ ich iiberzeugt bin..· dass ihre hiesige Wirk­ 37 : "Lichtung des Unterschieds kann deshalb samkeit von dem allergrOssten Einftuss auf auch nicht bedeuten, dass der Unterschied als das gesamte deutsche Geistesleben werden der Unterschied erscheint. Wohl dagegen mag wiirde." sich im Anwesen als solchem die Beziehung 37. In Autobiographie, p, 96, Jaspers comments auf das Anwesende bekunden, so zwar, dass on the fact that through Heidegger the Cath­ das Anwesen als diese Beziehung zu Worte olic became alive to him. He also kommit." remembered Heidegger talking about Augus­ 28. See Was Heisst Denkenr Tiibingen: Nie­ tine, St. and Luther. meyer, 1954, p, 93. 38. See Kerygma and Myth: A Theological De­ 29. See note 26. bate. Ed. by Hans Werner ·Bartsch and re­ 30. Note a to p. 50. vised by Reginald H. Fuller. New York : 31. Note a to p. 312. Harper & Row, 1961. Esp. the chapter, "Bult­ 32. Consider further the following sentences in mann ·Replies to his Critics," pp. 191-211. Zur Sache des Denkens: (TU.bingen: Nie­ 39. See the translation by Hart of this essay in meyer, 1969, P. 22) "Denn, in dem wir dem The Piety of Thinking~ pp. 5-21. Sein selbst nachdenken und seinem Eigenen 40. Ibid., p. 20. golgen, erweist es sich als die durch das 41. In Derriere le miroir: Homage d Ge_orges Reichen von Zeit gewiihrte Gabe des Ge­ Braque, 1963.

345