What do you think?
Rate this book
Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism
Written by a former student of Heidegger, this book examines the relationship between the philosophy and the politics of a celebrated teacher and the allure that Nazism held out for scholars committed to revolutionary nihilism.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
304 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 1995
About the author
Karl Löwith
66 books52 followersKarl Löwith was a German philosopher, a student of Heidegger. Löwith was one of the most prolific German philosophers of the twentieth century; the bibliography of his works comprising more than 300 titles.
Löwith was born in Munich. Though he was himself Protestant, his family was of Jewish descent and he therefore had to emigrate Germany in 1934 because of the National Socialist regime. He went to Italy and in 1936 he went to Japan. But because of the alliance between the Third Reich and Japan he had to leave Japan in 1941 and went to the USA. From 1941 to 1952, he taught at the Hartford Theological Seminary and the New School for Social Research. In 1952 he returned to Germany to teach as Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he died.
He is probably most known for his two books From Hegel to Nietzsche, which describes the decline of German classical philosophy, and Meaning in History, which discusses the problematic relationship between theology and history. Löwith's argument in Meaning in History is that the western view of history is confused by the relationship between Christian faith and the modern view, which is neither Christian nor pagan. Löwith describes this relationship through famous western philosophers and historians, including Burckhardt, Marx, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Vico, Bossuet, Augustine and Orosius. The modern historical consciousness is, according to Löwith, derived from Christianity. But, Christians are not a historical people, as their view of the world is based on faith. This explains the tendency in history (and philosophy) to an eschatological view of human progress.
Löwith was born in Munich. Though he was himself Protestant, his family was of Jewish descent and he therefore had to emigrate Germany in 1934 because of the National Socialist regime. He went to Italy and in 1936 he went to Japan. But because of the alliance between the Third Reich and Japan he had to leave Japan in 1941 and went to the USA. From 1941 to 1952, he taught at the Hartford Theological Seminary and the New School for Social Research. In 1952 he returned to Germany to teach as Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he died.
He is probably most known for his two books From Hegel to Nietzsche, which describes the decline of German classical philosophy, and Meaning in History, which discusses the problematic relationship between theology and history. Löwith's argument in Meaning in History is that the western view of history is confused by the relationship between Christian faith and the modern view, which is neither Christian nor pagan. Löwith describes this relationship through famous western philosophers and historians, including Burckhardt, Marx, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Vico, Bossuet, Augustine and Orosius. The modern historical consciousness is, according to Löwith, derived from Christianity. But, Christians are not a historical people, as their view of the world is based on faith. This explains the tendency in history (and philosophy) to an eschatological view of human progress.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 8, 2022
Sinceramente penso che Heiddeger lo avesse deluso. Io credo che nel suo profondo si sentisse ferito.
November 9, 2023
Karl Lowith was a student of Martin Heidegger and thus had intimate access to the thought, lectures, and writings of the controversial German philosopher. This text, mostly a critique of Heidegger's philosophy in relation to his Nazism, grounds itself in those experiences. As a Jew himself, Lowith feels betrayed by the thinking of Heidegger and regrets the influence the philosopher once had over him. Peppered throughout the text are several comments that point in that direction. More than just a critique, however, "Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism" is also an explanation of how we got here and why someone like Heidegger (or rather someone who thinks like Heidegger) was not only inevitable but also that their association with the Nazi party was inevitable as well.
In the eyes of Lowith, Heidegger's thought naturally tends towards the philosophical undercurrents of the Nazi party. Will, making one's fate manifest, being oneself authentically are all overlapping concepts. Just like Nietzsche, Heidegger's work became part and parcel of the intellectual wing of the Nazi party. This is unavoidable for Heidegger and thus attempts to "rehabilitate" Heidegger (in the sense of falling prey to a moment in history) are doomed to failure because this is exactly what Heidegger sought to bring about. We can debate that but the insights into Heidegger's work are invaluable. He rightly points out that while Heidegger wants to move past the tradition, as his destruction so famously advocates, he is still beholden to it in so many respects. The second half of the text is less focused on Heidegger's work itself but rather on the seeming inevitability of Heidegger's nihilism coming from Germany and dooming the old Europe to an extinction.
That being said, Lowith is by no means interested only in tearing down Heidegger. Indeed, the first few sections seem to be more of a critique of Heidegger's famous "Turn" than anything implicit in "Being & Time". The turn is, in so many words, a betrayal (on some level) of the work done by Heidegger leading up "Being & Time". My own reading of Heidegger (Being & Time, Basic Problems, and some essays) don't yet extend meaningfully into the "Turn" but it is an astute critique. The conclusions we can draw from "Being & Time" are dangerous (see my first paragraph) but are at least consistent. On their own, the pre and post turn Heidegger might be compatible; taken as a whole, however, one cannot seemingly reconcile the methods nor thoughts. More experienced readers of Heidegger might have more insight.
To critique Lowith's interpretation of Heidegger's thoughts is beyond my pay-grade. He was, after-all, the mans student and has a much firmer grasp of the material than I can hope to have. Of course, I think the claim that one like Heidegger must have come about a little suspect. The accident of Heidegger is at least worth thinking about. As Lowith points out, Heidegger was by no means the favored son of the Nazi's due to his refusal to make his thinking racial (in a specific sense). Taking Heidegger alone is indeed dangerous but even Lowith would caution throwing everything out to avoid that danger.
The middle section was about Carl Schmidt, a political theorist, that also involved Heidegger and their explicit/ implicit use of "decisionism(?)" and how it found a perfect home in the Nazi party. I refrain from comment because I've never read Schmidt. The critique of Heidegger seems to stand however. All in all, a sobering account by a gifted philosopher against the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Heidegger's legacy is always going to be contested. In my personal view, Heidegger's insights are best used as tools/ method/ insights rather than something to take on their own. That might be impossible or wishful thinking. What is for certain, however, is that more people ought to read Lowith. His critiques/ insights into modern man are criminally understudied.
In the eyes of Lowith, Heidegger's thought naturally tends towards the philosophical undercurrents of the Nazi party. Will, making one's fate manifest, being oneself authentically are all overlapping concepts. Just like Nietzsche, Heidegger's work became part and parcel of the intellectual wing of the Nazi party. This is unavoidable for Heidegger and thus attempts to "rehabilitate" Heidegger (in the sense of falling prey to a moment in history) are doomed to failure because this is exactly what Heidegger sought to bring about. We can debate that but the insights into Heidegger's work are invaluable. He rightly points out that while Heidegger wants to move past the tradition, as his destruction so famously advocates, he is still beholden to it in so many respects. The second half of the text is less focused on Heidegger's work itself but rather on the seeming inevitability of Heidegger's nihilism coming from Germany and dooming the old Europe to an extinction.
That being said, Lowith is by no means interested only in tearing down Heidegger. Indeed, the first few sections seem to be more of a critique of Heidegger's famous "Turn" than anything implicit in "Being & Time". The turn is, in so many words, a betrayal (on some level) of the work done by Heidegger leading up "Being & Time". My own reading of Heidegger (Being & Time, Basic Problems, and some essays) don't yet extend meaningfully into the "Turn" but it is an astute critique. The conclusions we can draw from "Being & Time" are dangerous (see my first paragraph) but are at least consistent. On their own, the pre and post turn Heidegger might be compatible; taken as a whole, however, one cannot seemingly reconcile the methods nor thoughts. More experienced readers of Heidegger might have more insight.
To critique Lowith's interpretation of Heidegger's thoughts is beyond my pay-grade. He was, after-all, the mans student and has a much firmer grasp of the material than I can hope to have. Of course, I think the claim that one like Heidegger must have come about a little suspect. The accident of Heidegger is at least worth thinking about. As Lowith points out, Heidegger was by no means the favored son of the Nazi's due to his refusal to make his thinking racial (in a specific sense). Taking Heidegger alone is indeed dangerous but even Lowith would caution throwing everything out to avoid that danger.
The middle section was about Carl Schmidt, a political theorist, that also involved Heidegger and their explicit/ implicit use of "decisionism(?)" and how it found a perfect home in the Nazi party. I refrain from comment because I've never read Schmidt. The critique of Heidegger seems to stand however. All in all, a sobering account by a gifted philosopher against the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Heidegger's legacy is always going to be contested. In my personal view, Heidegger's insights are best used as tools/ method/ insights rather than something to take on their own. That might be impossible or wishful thinking. What is for certain, however, is that more people ought to read Lowith. His critiques/ insights into modern man are criminally understudied.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews