What do you think?
Rate this book
Hölderlin's Hymn The Ister
Martin Heidegger's 1942 lecture course interprets Friedrich Hölderlin's hymn "The Ister" within the context of Hölderlin's poetic and philosophical work, with particular emphasis on Hölderlin's dialogue with Greek tragedy. Delivered in summer 1942 at the University of Freiburg, this course was first published in German in 1984 as volume 53 of Heidegger's Collected Works. Revealing for Heidegger's thought of the period are his discussions of the meaning of "the political" and "the national," in which he emphasizes the difficulty and the necessity of finding "one's own" in and through a dialogue with "the foreign." In this context Heidegger reflects on the nature of translation and interpretation. A detailed reading of the famous chorus from Sophocles' Antigone, known as the "ode to man," is a key feature of the course.
185 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1988
About the author
Martin Heidegger
527 books3,332 followersMartin Heidegger (1889-1976) was a German philosopher whose work is perhaps most readily associated with phenomenology and existentialism, although his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification. His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler forthcoming).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 4, 2022
very good martin
August 2, 2020
Heidegger's analysis on one hand looks to be an effort to chokehold Hoelderlin into his own historical framework, but really the better way to look at this is to view it as an effort to explain Hoelderlin's patently Naive (in the Schiller sense, although Heidegger makes no reference to Schiller) style. Heidi's immense hostility, then, to any sort of aesthetic framework (he patently rejects Hegel's aesthetics here) makes sense from the point of view that Hoelderlin, as he really did, was attempting an intuitive, instinctual, pre-platonic sort of poetizing (the sort Heidegger wants, anyways).
So we understand Hoelderlin's poem not as a symbolic philosophical discussion (since this is a modern concept) but rather a speech-act sort of naming/glorifying of the existence of things in themselves. When he returns to the second choral of antigone, it is not out of pure interest in that chorale (which Heidegger analyzed elsewhere several times) but rather to collect the concepts Hoelderlin had in mind, namely those of the interplay between the inherent '[un/]homeliness' of human beings in the world (ie, how humanity unlike the other animals has a constant capacity to grow and feel restless). And finally, Heidegger returns to Hoelderlin's poem with this in mind to make sense of it in its context among the other idealists, giving a fairly reasonable assessment of Hoelderlin's poetry as an attempt to 'open mankind to their Being', or in simpler terms, expand their awareness of themselves/the world (in a way distinct from mathematical/Kantian frameworks, and in a similar current to how the German Idealists felt the Greeks saw the world).
This is an older Heidegger, who still holds some links to Nazism but has grown cynical about its implementation and frustrated with the conceptual barbarism they displayed. The more interesting aspect in terms of contemporary discourse is his continued aggression towards Americanism (primarily in off-hand references to America's obsession with categorization/commercialism, and their general ignorance towards history and tradition). As for his historical claims, they are far more reasonably defended than might be expected, and in sum this provides a very reasonable interpretation of Hoelderlin which seems to have merit even outside of the philosophical ideas of his own that verge in here.
I give this three stars for no other reason than that this book makes an extremely similar argument to the one presented in Cavell's 'Senses of Walden', particularly with regard to the notion of Romantic literature as speech acts that can speak to the common people beyond Kantian/Platonic philosophical categorizations. Cavell himself wrote a lengthy article about the similarities between his book and this (as well as between Hoelderlin and Thoreau, and also between Heidegger and the Late Wittgenstein (since continental academics with proclaimed interest in analytic literally cannot stop talking about Philosophical Investigations)):
https://www.cairn.info/revue-francais...
So we understand Hoelderlin's poem not as a symbolic philosophical discussion (since this is a modern concept) but rather a speech-act sort of naming/glorifying of the existence of things in themselves. When he returns to the second choral of antigone, it is not out of pure interest in that chorale (which Heidegger analyzed elsewhere several times) but rather to collect the concepts Hoelderlin had in mind, namely those of the interplay between the inherent '[un/]homeliness' of human beings in the world (ie, how humanity unlike the other animals has a constant capacity to grow and feel restless). And finally, Heidegger returns to Hoelderlin's poem with this in mind to make sense of it in its context among the other idealists, giving a fairly reasonable assessment of Hoelderlin's poetry as an attempt to 'open mankind to their Being', or in simpler terms, expand their awareness of themselves/the world (in a way distinct from mathematical/Kantian frameworks, and in a similar current to how the German Idealists felt the Greeks saw the world).
This is an older Heidegger, who still holds some links to Nazism but has grown cynical about its implementation and frustrated with the conceptual barbarism they displayed. The more interesting aspect in terms of contemporary discourse is his continued aggression towards Americanism (primarily in off-hand references to America's obsession with categorization/commercialism, and their general ignorance towards history and tradition). As for his historical claims, they are far more reasonably defended than might be expected, and in sum this provides a very reasonable interpretation of Hoelderlin which seems to have merit even outside of the philosophical ideas of his own that verge in here.
I give this three stars for no other reason than that this book makes an extremely similar argument to the one presented in Cavell's 'Senses of Walden', particularly with regard to the notion of Romantic literature as speech acts that can speak to the common people beyond Kantian/Platonic philosophical categorizations. Cavell himself wrote a lengthy article about the similarities between his book and this (as well as between Hoelderlin and Thoreau, and also between Heidegger and the Late Wittgenstein (since continental academics with proclaimed interest in analytic literally cannot stop talking about Philosophical Investigations)):
https://www.cairn.info/revue-francais...
December 24, 2024
I came here from Hölderlin’s poetry collection after recognizing “the Ister” from the film title which I’ll have to watch next. Heidegger references a number of different poems in here (1984) so it was good to read Hölderlin’s collection first (early 1800s). I definitely did not understand this fully but it was interesting on its own and revealed new layers of meaning to his poetry that I wouldn’t have picked up on alone. It also made me rethink my understanding of his other work, specifically questioning my interpretation as allegories. I may try to read another one of his lectures of which there are four or read Antigone which Heidegger ties to the Ister’s backwards movement here. I’m writing my own short summary below just to process it and so I can refer back to it.
______
I think to begin understanding Heidegger‘s interpretation you have to acknowledge that for Heidegger the political is inherently poetical or only a poetical being can undergo the repositioning of self necessary for politics. Extending this to Holderlin in this lecture, Heidegger argues that the poetisizing of the river in The Ister renders the political possible. This is because the river flows as a “bounded motion” embodying both movement and rest which reflects how humans engage with the world as an continuous reinterpreting and homecoming; the rivers “journeying” and “locality” call the poet to engage what is foreign and familiar or concealed and known:
“The poets, as poets, are these rivers, and these rivers are the poets. Poetically they ground the dwelling of human beings upon this earth.“
When the poet calls the river in turn by its name, the Ister, it is not symbolic or allegorical, it is invoked through its being/flowing as a locus of engagement through poetic recollection.
“The river is the locality that pervades the abode of human beings upon the earth, determines them to where they belong and where they are homely. The river thus brings human beings into their own and maintains them in what is their own.”
He contrasts this with the modern technological view that does not dwell but exploits and calculates space and time. Given that this is our existing relation to the polis I think he is calling us to rethink how we dwell. Both the river and the poet are necessary to do so, or to get our wings as Holderlin puts it: “No one can grasp / Straight at what’s closest / Without wings, and then / Arrive at the other side.”
______
I think to begin understanding Heidegger‘s interpretation you have to acknowledge that for Heidegger the political is inherently poetical or only a poetical being can undergo the repositioning of self necessary for politics. Extending this to Holderlin in this lecture, Heidegger argues that the poetisizing of the river in The Ister renders the political possible. This is because the river flows as a “bounded motion” embodying both movement and rest which reflects how humans engage with the world as an continuous reinterpreting and homecoming; the rivers “journeying” and “locality” call the poet to engage what is foreign and familiar or concealed and known:
“The poets, as poets, are these rivers, and these rivers are the poets. Poetically they ground the dwelling of human beings upon this earth.“
When the poet calls the river in turn by its name, the Ister, it is not symbolic or allegorical, it is invoked through its being/flowing as a locus of engagement through poetic recollection.
“The river is the locality that pervades the abode of human beings upon the earth, determines them to where they belong and where they are homely. The river thus brings human beings into their own and maintains them in what is their own.”
He contrasts this with the modern technological view that does not dwell but exploits and calculates space and time. Given that this is our existing relation to the polis I think he is calling us to rethink how we dwell. Both the river and the poet are necessary to do so, or to get our wings as Holderlin puts it: “No one can grasp / Straight at what’s closest / Without wings, and then / Arrive at the other side.”
July 14, 2016
Long discussion of what heidegger means by the uncanny. Roughly, an ontic description of uncanniness is that it involves an unusual "state of mind" like dizziness, daze,confusion, or fantasies. It is not the everyday mind. In other works, heidegger describes the uncanny as a state of wonder or astonishment at the fact that there is anything at all. It is related to the twilight state between conscious and unconscious experienced as theta waves in drowsy states just before waking or falling asleep or dusk or dawn. However, heidegger uses the words conscious/unconscious in only a negative sense and is critical of Freud.
Read
September 9, 2012Maybe one Heidegger's most important seminars and one that you are least likely to see at a bookstore.
August 4, 2023
“Now come, fire!” - this is how Holderlin's unfinished hymn "The Ister" starts. To help us understand this hymn - and even this single line - Heidegger needs to bring together a lot here: the nature of hymns, the nature of the poets and poetizing, the nature of rivers, the nature of time and space, the metaphysical and anti-metaphysical understanding of art, the symbolic vs. non-symbolic, the nature of translation and interpretation, the nature of the negative, the nature of polis and of politics, Holderlin's as a poet and his poetry, the Greeks and the Germans, Sophocles' Antigone, the journey of the river and of the poet, the divine, the gods, the problems with Christianity, German Idealism, and with the entire modern project, the nature of technology, the historical vs. unhistorical, the understanding of truth, the dwelling of humans, the Greek and the modern understanding of Being, the historical grounding of Being, the Event, and so on. And Heidegger at this point in his life is able to do all this in a masterful, coherent, and extremely deep way – just to approach this hymn.
According to Holderlin, “humans poetically dwell upon this earth”; that is without poets and poetry there is no dwelling and no humans. The rivers in their journeying, are the same as the poets returning home and in determining the way in which human beings come to be at home upon this earth. Moreover, poets and the rivers determine what space and time are for humans. Holderlin's particular interest is the history and what is most intimate to the Germans - as they need to appropriate what is their own and to make explicit this law of their history. The Ancient Greeks experienced something similar with the arrival and proximity of the gods; that is with “the fire from the heavens”. The Germans have their “clarity of presentation”; and with the help of the poet who returns from abroad bringing with him this “fire”, a new guest-house for the gods may be established – one that the old and recent temples cannot longer accomplish. Thus the poetic words: “Now come, fire!”
In the first third of this book, Heidegger discusses the nature of art and poems, the essence of the rivers and why they are not symbols of anything (as the metaphysics of art suggests), and why rivers and poets become homely by traveling abroad and then by returning to their homeland. In the second third of this book, the Greek conception of becoming homely is discussed in the Sophocles' Antigone - where a human is understood as the most uncanny being and in the need to keep this tension between homely and uncanny/unhomely alive. The last third of this book brings everything together; and in particular brings Germany's unhomely to homely with the help of the river Ister and of the poet Holderlin – both understood as demigods.
I remember watching “The Ister” way before reading and understanding Heidegger, and enjoying the movie. I tried to watch the movie again now, but I found the explanations of those philosophers way too metaphysical for my taste. However, the recording of Heidegger reading Holderlin's hymn “The Ister” in the movie is still great.
According to Holderlin, “humans poetically dwell upon this earth”; that is without poets and poetry there is no dwelling and no humans. The rivers in their journeying, are the same as the poets returning home and in determining the way in which human beings come to be at home upon this earth. Moreover, poets and the rivers determine what space and time are for humans. Holderlin's particular interest is the history and what is most intimate to the Germans - as they need to appropriate what is their own and to make explicit this law of their history. The Ancient Greeks experienced something similar with the arrival and proximity of the gods; that is with “the fire from the heavens”. The Germans have their “clarity of presentation”; and with the help of the poet who returns from abroad bringing with him this “fire”, a new guest-house for the gods may be established – one that the old and recent temples cannot longer accomplish. Thus the poetic words: “Now come, fire!”
In the first third of this book, Heidegger discusses the nature of art and poems, the essence of the rivers and why they are not symbols of anything (as the metaphysics of art suggests), and why rivers and poets become homely by traveling abroad and then by returning to their homeland. In the second third of this book, the Greek conception of becoming homely is discussed in the Sophocles' Antigone - where a human is understood as the most uncanny being and in the need to keep this tension between homely and uncanny/unhomely alive. The last third of this book brings everything together; and in particular brings Germany's unhomely to homely with the help of the river Ister and of the poet Holderlin – both understood as demigods.
I remember watching “The Ister” way before reading and understanding Heidegger, and enjoying the movie. I tried to watch the movie again now, but I found the explanations of those philosophers way too metaphysical for my taste. However, the recording of Heidegger reading Holderlin's hymn “The Ister” in the movie is still great.
January 21, 2025
I love the way Heidegger talks about poetry; he seems to give it its full due. Take "The Origin of the Work of Art," for instance, or his insistence in this book (lectures for a course he gave in 1942) that poetic ideas are not simply philosophical ideas with a lot of frosting and bows. One does not subtract or scrape off the poetry to get the "real" idea. The idea is in the poetry, damn it.
However, I worry that Heidegger's thinking about poetry is fatally compromised by his support of Hitler and Nazism.
Heidegger has some insights here that left me slack-jawed in admiration. The main subject is Hölderlin's hymn to the River Ister (a.k.a. the Danube), and in Part I Heidegger describes a river as at the same time a locality and a journeying. Which struck me as profoundly true. The river is here before us, so it is a locality, but the water we see was upstream yesterday and will be downstream tomorrow, so the river is also an elsewhere. Similarly, the river is a now, while before us, but in its movement is also the past and the future.
Part III declares that the poet is a river. The poet is of the now--but also, if he or she is mindful of tradition, also a voice of the past and, in prophetic mode, a voice of the future. And the poet is of here--but also in his or her awareness of other traditions, perhaps also an elsewhere. Great idea, no? So the poet is a river--
--which means the poet is a demi-god, like the river. "Uh oh," you might think here. And then history gets married to the idea of locality and Heidegger starts suggesting that the West is special, thanks to the Greeks, and the German are special too, since they come closest to grasping what the Greeks were about...and we are well past "uh oh" at that point.
Can we say poets are rivers and call it good, without saying they are demi-gods?
Part II, the longest section of the book at about 70 pages, is about the first choral ode in Sophocles' Antigone, and it too is astonishingly insightful, thankfully without raising so many red flags. A key point: the word "deinon" in the first line, most often translated "wonder," actually shades off into concepts like anxiety and terror as well as awe--the frightful, powerful, and inhabitual is Heidegger's formula--so the chorus's claim that humankind has more "deinon" to it than anything else in the world is worth pondering, and ponder it Heidegger does. Part II is a neat demonstration that the poetic idea is not the pill under the sugar coating, but integral to the poetry itself.
Final note: German has a verb, dichten, which means "to compose" and is not quite the same as the word "to write." Rather than translate it as "writing poetry," McNeill and Davis render it as "poetize," which was odd at first but made sense, as it helps capture the act of discernment or framing that is part of writing poetry.
However, I worry that Heidegger's thinking about poetry is fatally compromised by his support of Hitler and Nazism.
Heidegger has some insights here that left me slack-jawed in admiration. The main subject is Hölderlin's hymn to the River Ister (a.k.a. the Danube), and in Part I Heidegger describes a river as at the same time a locality and a journeying. Which struck me as profoundly true. The river is here before us, so it is a locality, but the water we see was upstream yesterday and will be downstream tomorrow, so the river is also an elsewhere. Similarly, the river is a now, while before us, but in its movement is also the past and the future.
Part III declares that the poet is a river. The poet is of the now--but also, if he or she is mindful of tradition, also a voice of the past and, in prophetic mode, a voice of the future. And the poet is of here--but also in his or her awareness of other traditions, perhaps also an elsewhere. Great idea, no? So the poet is a river--
--which means the poet is a demi-god, like the river. "Uh oh," you might think here. And then history gets married to the idea of locality and Heidegger starts suggesting that the West is special, thanks to the Greeks, and the German are special too, since they come closest to grasping what the Greeks were about...and we are well past "uh oh" at that point.
Can we say poets are rivers and call it good, without saying they are demi-gods?
Part II, the longest section of the book at about 70 pages, is about the first choral ode in Sophocles' Antigone, and it too is astonishingly insightful, thankfully without raising so many red flags. A key point: the word "deinon" in the first line, most often translated "wonder," actually shades off into concepts like anxiety and terror as well as awe--the frightful, powerful, and inhabitual is Heidegger's formula--so the chorus's claim that humankind has more "deinon" to it than anything else in the world is worth pondering, and ponder it Heidegger does. Part II is a neat demonstration that the poetic idea is not the pill under the sugar coating, but integral to the poetry itself.
Final note: German has a verb, dichten, which means "to compose" and is not quite the same as the word "to write." Rather than translate it as "writing poetry," McNeill and Davis render it as "poetize," which was odd at first but made sense, as it helps capture the act of discernment or framing that is part of writing poetry.
February 26, 2019
Well, shit. I didn't actually read this whole book, I only read part of it for class.
Anyway, Heidegger only mentions the possibility of The Ister as a fragment in passing and this kind of sets up his reading to be a sort of willful read of The Ister as German nationalism via the environment. If The Ister IS a fragment (which is possible: the first stanzas of the poem have 20 lines and the last only has 12 but still manages to sound like it actually ends) like some of Hölderlin's other work, then I think Hölderlin is both rhapsodizing the river and also bemoaning our inability to fully understand it. In other words, he is making a hymn that might be eco-nationalist but also deconstructing the hymn as he constructs it.
Heidegger doesn't entertain this possibility. Maybe it isn't fair to read Heidegger's politics in to his analysis of a poem but even if we didn't know what we know about what Heidegger becomes, his attempts at understanding Hölderlin come off as heavy-handed. Actually, they come off as just the kind of interpretation that Heidegger claims he doesn't want to give.
Anyway, Heidegger only mentions the possibility of The Ister as a fragment in passing and this kind of sets up his reading to be a sort of willful read of The Ister as German nationalism via the environment. If The Ister IS a fragment (which is possible: the first stanzas of the poem have 20 lines and the last only has 12 but still manages to sound like it actually ends) like some of Hölderlin's other work, then I think Hölderlin is both rhapsodizing the river and also bemoaning our inability to fully understand it. In other words, he is making a hymn that might be eco-nationalist but also deconstructing the hymn as he constructs it.
Heidegger doesn't entertain this possibility. Maybe it isn't fair to read Heidegger's politics in to his analysis of a poem but even if we didn't know what we know about what Heidegger becomes, his attempts at understanding Hölderlin come off as heavy-handed. Actually, they come off as just the kind of interpretation that Heidegger claims he doesn't want to give.
Read
March 9, 2024Hölderlin's Hymn The Ister is one among a number of lecture series that philosopher Martin Heidegger gave that were published posthumously. The volume has historical value if nothing else. Heidegger was one among the German intelligentsia foolish enough to join the National Socialist party, and advocated on its behalf to boot. That advocacy is on full display in this lecture series where Heidegger uses 18th-19th century poet Friedrich Hölderlin's poem The Ister as the occasion to give a backdoor endorsement of Hitler's war program. Heidegger contorts Hölderlin's poem about the Danube to speak to nonsense about the volk and the so-called destiny of the German people and all the other racist ideology that Hitler promulgated and Heidegger lapped up.
January 28, 2020
From the Heart ...
January 15, 2024
Captivatingly bizarre readings of poetry. Eerie to read his contemplation of the word "arbeit" in a lecture from 1942.
July 6, 2012
December 2010: Read section two, The Greek interpretation of human beings in Sophocles' Antigone, for Language. It was an excellent reading—and demonstration of explication that can fuse philosophy, poetry and drama while blending with its subject matter in an "uncanny" way ;). However, I feel like there are some anomalies which he is (intentionally?) overlooking or simplifying. I'm just not intelligent enough to put my finger on them ;)
May 2012: I had mentioned to Mr. Recco that we read this in Ms. Printz' class and he recommended that I watch The Ister. That was amazing, and so I decided to re-read this, and also that I might as well read the whole thing. When I read the second section last year, I didn't understand why Heidegger would write about Holderlin, or why it related to Sophocles; I even had a vague notion that whatever poem Holderlin wrote was very long and inaccessible. Heidegger's work is a masterpiece of interpretation; his approach is cautious but bold, thorough but sweeping. I had been chewing on his interpretation of the Antigone all year, especially his thoughts about interpretation, language, and Deinon, but I found some newly-understood gems in that section with Hestia and the Phaedrus, and also other, new gems across the whole book: space & time, technology, journeying, poetizing, demigods, and signs. I look forward to re-reading the book and understanding more about "Spirit," which surely relates to Hegel (although, as Heidegger cautions the reader, Holderlin's poetry cannot be taken as an absorption of Hegel's philosophical concept of Spirit)—I say that I am looking forward to re-reading the book because I plan to re-read it in the midst of or shortly after I write my Senior Essay. If I hadn't read the book before, I would probably wait until after I wrote the essay; however, I want to be sure that any thoughts I have are correctly related to their origins in Heidegger's thought. Not only do I want to avoid plagiarizing him, but I also want to (try to) match the quality and caliber of Heidegger's thought; to continue what he has begun in that direction. He explicitly calls for further work in this area:
"[Hestia] is the middle of all steadfast constancy and presence—that which essentially prevails in being, that which the Greeks experience in the sense of constant presence. In order to fully grasp Plato's pointer concerning the poetizing of beings, we would here have to go into the stance that he himself takes towards this poetizing telling, and the way in which he gives his own thinking a determination that exceeds and thus leaves beneath it all poetizing, as a result of which poetizing then essentially remains "mere" poetizing as far as all metaphysics is concerned."
I've been thinking a lot about the Greek words cosmos and muthos this year; I think a lot of this thought is indirectly coming through Heidegger's work, and has been rudely synthesized with Descartes, Kant, Cervantes and my own Andrew on Jenny. I think it may be a good project to track the roots of the modern understanding of this word. Still, the mid-term project must be The Phaedrus, and that will determine what projects come after that.
May 2012: I had mentioned to Mr. Recco that we read this in Ms. Printz' class and he recommended that I watch The Ister. That was amazing, and so I decided to re-read this, and also that I might as well read the whole thing. When I read the second section last year, I didn't understand why Heidegger would write about Holderlin, or why it related to Sophocles; I even had a vague notion that whatever poem Holderlin wrote was very long and inaccessible. Heidegger's work is a masterpiece of interpretation; his approach is cautious but bold, thorough but sweeping. I had been chewing on his interpretation of the Antigone all year, especially his thoughts about interpretation, language, and Deinon, but I found some newly-understood gems in that section with Hestia and the Phaedrus, and also other, new gems across the whole book: space & time, technology, journeying, poetizing, demigods, and signs. I look forward to re-reading the book and understanding more about "Spirit," which surely relates to Hegel (although, as Heidegger cautions the reader, Holderlin's poetry cannot be taken as an absorption of Hegel's philosophical concept of Spirit)—I say that I am looking forward to re-reading the book because I plan to re-read it in the midst of or shortly after I write my Senior Essay. If I hadn't read the book before, I would probably wait until after I wrote the essay; however, I want to be sure that any thoughts I have are correctly related to their origins in Heidegger's thought. Not only do I want to avoid plagiarizing him, but I also want to (try to) match the quality and caliber of Heidegger's thought; to continue what he has begun in that direction. He explicitly calls for further work in this area:
"[Hestia] is the middle of all steadfast constancy and presence—that which essentially prevails in being, that which the Greeks experience in the sense of constant presence. In order to fully grasp Plato's pointer concerning the poetizing of beings, we would here have to go into the stance that he himself takes towards this poetizing telling, and the way in which he gives his own thinking a determination that exceeds and thus leaves beneath it all poetizing, as a result of which poetizing then essentially remains "mere" poetizing as far as all metaphysics is concerned."
I've been thinking a lot about the Greek words cosmos and muthos this year; I think a lot of this thought is indirectly coming through Heidegger's work, and has been rudely synthesized with Descartes, Kant, Cervantes and my own Andrew on Jenny. I think it may be a good project to track the roots of the modern understanding of this word. Still, the mid-term project must be The Phaedrus, and that will determine what projects come after that.
i-want-money
April 18, 2014Der Ister ::
Jetzt komme, Feuer!
Begierig sind wir,
Zu schauen den Tag,
Und wenn die Prüfung
Ist durch die Knie gegangen,
Mag einer spüren das Waldgeschrei.
Wir singen aber vom Indus her
Fernangekommen und
Vom Alpheus, lange haben
Das Schickliche wir gesucht,
Nicht ohne Schwingen mag
Zum Nächsten einer greifen
Geradezu
Und kommen auf die andere Seite.
Hier aber wollen wir bauen.
Denn Ströme machen urbar
Das Land. Wenn nämlich Kräuter wachsen
Und an denselben gehn
Im Sommer zu trinken die Tiere,
So gehn auch Menschen daran.
Man nennet aber diesen den Ister.
Schön wohnt er. Es brennet der Säulen Laub,
Und reget sich. Wild stehn
Sie aufgerichtet, untereinander; darob
Ein zweites Maß, springt vor
Von Felsen das Dach. So wundert
Mich nicht, daß er
Den Herkules zu Gaste geladen,
Fernglänzend, am Olympos drunten,
Da der, sich Schatten zu suchen
Vom heißen Isthmos kam,
Denn voll des Mutes waren
Daselbst sie, es bedarf aber, der Geister wegen,
Der Kühlung auch. Darum zog jener lieber
An die Wasserquellen hieher und gelben Ufer,
Hoch duftend oben, und schwarz
Vom Fichtenwald, wo in den Tiefen
Ein Jäger gern lustwandelt
Mittags, und Wachstum hörbar ist
An harzigen Bäumen des Isters,
Der scheinet aber fast
Rückwärts zu gehen und
Ich mein, er müsse kommen
Von Osten.
Vieles wäre
Zu sagen davon. Und warum hängt er
An den Bergen grad? Der andre,
Der Rhein, ist seitwärts
Hinweggegangen. Umsonst nicht gehn
Im Trocknen die Ströme. Aber wie? Ein Zeichen braucht es,
Nichts anderes, schlecht und recht, damit es Sonn
Und Mond trag im Gemüt, untrennbar,
Und fortgeh, Tag und Nacht auch, und
Die Himmlischen warm sich fühlen aneinander.
Darum sind jene auch
Die Freude des Höchsten. Denn wie käm er
Herunter? Und wie Hertha grün,
Sind sie die Kinder des Himmels. Aber allzugeduldig
Scheint der mir, nicht
Freier, und fast zu spotten. Nämlich wenn
Angehen soll der Tag
In der Jugend, wo er zu wachsen
Anfängt, es treibet ein anderer da
Hoch schon die Pracht, und Füllen gleich
In den Zaum knirscht er, und weithin hören
Das Treiben die Lüfte,
Ist der zufrieden;
Es brauchet aber Stiche der Fels
Und Furchen die Erd,
Unwirtbar wär es, ohne Weile;
Was aber jener tuet, der Strom,
weiß niemand.
Heidegger reads ::
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xim1...
The film ::
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397477/?...
The book ::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6l...
Jetzt komme, Feuer!
Begierig sind wir,
Zu schauen den Tag,
Und wenn die Prüfung
Ist durch die Knie gegangen,
Mag einer spüren das Waldgeschrei.
Wir singen aber vom Indus her
Fernangekommen und
Vom Alpheus, lange haben
Das Schickliche wir gesucht,
Nicht ohne Schwingen mag
Zum Nächsten einer greifen
Geradezu
Und kommen auf die andere Seite.
Hier aber wollen wir bauen.
Denn Ströme machen urbar
Das Land. Wenn nämlich Kräuter wachsen
Und an denselben gehn
Im Sommer zu trinken die Tiere,
So gehn auch Menschen daran.
Man nennet aber diesen den Ister.
Schön wohnt er. Es brennet der Säulen Laub,
Und reget sich. Wild stehn
Sie aufgerichtet, untereinander; darob
Ein zweites Maß, springt vor
Von Felsen das Dach. So wundert
Mich nicht, daß er
Den Herkules zu Gaste geladen,
Fernglänzend, am Olympos drunten,
Da der, sich Schatten zu suchen
Vom heißen Isthmos kam,
Denn voll des Mutes waren
Daselbst sie, es bedarf aber, der Geister wegen,
Der Kühlung auch. Darum zog jener lieber
An die Wasserquellen hieher und gelben Ufer,
Hoch duftend oben, und schwarz
Vom Fichtenwald, wo in den Tiefen
Ein Jäger gern lustwandelt
Mittags, und Wachstum hörbar ist
An harzigen Bäumen des Isters,
Der scheinet aber fast
Rückwärts zu gehen und
Ich mein, er müsse kommen
Von Osten.
Vieles wäre
Zu sagen davon. Und warum hängt er
An den Bergen grad? Der andre,
Der Rhein, ist seitwärts
Hinweggegangen. Umsonst nicht gehn
Im Trocknen die Ströme. Aber wie? Ein Zeichen braucht es,
Nichts anderes, schlecht und recht, damit es Sonn
Und Mond trag im Gemüt, untrennbar,
Und fortgeh, Tag und Nacht auch, und
Die Himmlischen warm sich fühlen aneinander.
Darum sind jene auch
Die Freude des Höchsten. Denn wie käm er
Herunter? Und wie Hertha grün,
Sind sie die Kinder des Himmels. Aber allzugeduldig
Scheint der mir, nicht
Freier, und fast zu spotten. Nämlich wenn
Angehen soll der Tag
In der Jugend, wo er zu wachsen
Anfängt, es treibet ein anderer da
Hoch schon die Pracht, und Füllen gleich
In den Zaum knirscht er, und weithin hören
Das Treiben die Lüfte,
Ist der zufrieden;
Es brauchet aber Stiche der Fels
Und Furchen die Erd,
Unwirtbar wär es, ohne Weile;
Was aber jener tuet, der Strom,
weiß niemand.
Heidegger reads ::
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xim1...
The film ::
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397477/?...
The book ::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6l...
August 23, 2012
Heidegger remarks, on the Translations, in the second part of this lecture "translating is interpreting and interpreting is translating" now if I apply the same to this text, the translators didn't do the job as per the expectation; for example, on various discussions regarding origin of Greek works, the translators assume that the readers must already know (not just read/write) Greek, this is a critical mistake as a lot of second part of the lecture is presented as-is i.e., without any Greek-to-English translation. As a result, the translators have narrowed down the target audience. I agree with keeping the lecture intact with Greek words but for the sake of translation, there should be at least end notes or footnotes on what is the Greek word in question.
Nonetheless, a must read for anyone interested in poetic interpretations and hermeneutics in general.
Nonetheless, a must read for anyone interested in poetic interpretations and hermeneutics in general.
July 30, 2015
This is an important work for a number of reasons. Primarily, it brings into view an ecological deconstruction, as we see Heidegger applying the work of his ontological deconstruction in the treatment of a Holderlin's naturalism. Also many issues pertaining to criticism of the author come into view - one can begin questioning Heidegger's ideas of spirit: what are the possibilities and dangers of thinking a nation or a people? Wh can we learn from the paradox of Heidegger's stature and the relation to National Socialism?
Want to Read
March 21, 2008I'd like to read this as a fan of Syberberg's films, and this a key issue they explore.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews