What do you think?
Rate this book
Discourse on Thinking: A Translation of Gelassenheit
Excerpt from Discourse on Thinking: A Translation of Gelassenheit
Martin Heidegger's Discourse on Thinking,1 which is translated here, was published in 1959. It comprises a statement of the point of view of his later thought. Since Heidegger's later thought has evoked so much interest among philosophers and, in the last few years, theologians, it seems important to have Significant examples of it avail able in English. Discourse on Thinking is a particularly good example for this purpose not only because it is SO re cent, but because of its format and style.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
Martin Heidegger's Discourse on Thinking,1 which is translated here, was published in 1959. It comprises a statement of the point of view of his later thought. Since Heidegger's later thought has evoked so much interest among philosophers and, in the last few years, theologians, it seems important to have Significant examples of it avail able in English. Discourse on Thinking is a particularly good example for this purpose not only because it is SO re cent, but because of its format and style.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
95 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1954
29 people are currently reading
1728 people want to read
About the author
Martin Heidegger
510 books3,145 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 - 30 of 59 reviews
April 19, 2021
Há livros que nos encontraram no momento certo. As palavras que encerram estavam ali, desde sempre, à nossa espera.
Mais uma magnífica obra de M. Heidegger, apesar da sua brevidade. Este discurso [ora livro] foi proferido por Heidegger aquando a celebração do 175º aniversário do nascimento do compositor Conradim Kreutzer, em Messkirch, a 30.10.1955.
Nesta obra, Heidegger discorre de forma nostálgica e bela acerca da introdução da tecnologia na vida do Homem e, a forma como a tecnologia pode aniquilar a nossa sensibilidade e sobrevivência. Estas pequenas reflexões servem de prelúdio a outras reflexões acerca da serenidade e de que forma estamos destinados a encontrá-la; contudo, é preciso estar atento e não ceder à monotonia.
Heidegger socorre-se de um belo poema de Peter Hebel para inaugurar a obra:
"Nós somos plantas que - quer nos agrade confessar quer não -, apoiadas nas raízes, têm de romper o solo, a fim de poder florescer no Éter e dar frutos."
--
"Porque o caminho para o que está próximo é para nós, homens, sempre o mais longo e, por isso, o mais difícil."
"A serenidade é, de facto, o libertar-se do representar transcendental e, assim, um prescindir do querer do horizonte."
"Cada vez mais pobres na aparência e, no entanto, mais ricos em a-caso [Zu-fall].
"Para a criança no Homem, a noite permanece a aproximadora das estrelas."
"Assim, poderia a admiração abrir o que está fechado?"
Mais uma magnífica obra de M. Heidegger, apesar da sua brevidade. Este discurso [ora livro] foi proferido por Heidegger aquando a celebração do 175º aniversário do nascimento do compositor Conradim Kreutzer, em Messkirch, a 30.10.1955.
Nesta obra, Heidegger discorre de forma nostálgica e bela acerca da introdução da tecnologia na vida do Homem e, a forma como a tecnologia pode aniquilar a nossa sensibilidade e sobrevivência. Estas pequenas reflexões servem de prelúdio a outras reflexões acerca da serenidade e de que forma estamos destinados a encontrá-la; contudo, é preciso estar atento e não ceder à monotonia.
Heidegger socorre-se de um belo poema de Peter Hebel para inaugurar a obra:
"Nós somos plantas que - quer nos agrade confessar quer não -, apoiadas nas raízes, têm de romper o solo, a fim de poder florescer no Éter e dar frutos."
--
"Porque o caminho para o que está próximo é para nós, homens, sempre o mais longo e, por isso, o mais difícil."
"A serenidade é, de facto, o libertar-se do representar transcendental e, assim, um prescindir do querer do horizonte."
"Cada vez mais pobres na aparência e, no entanto, mais ricos em a-caso [Zu-fall].
"Para a criança no Homem, a noite permanece a aproximadora das estrelas."
"Assim, poderia a admiração abrir o que está fechado?"
March 17, 2023
In the memorial addressed to his fellow countrymen and in his birthplace village, Heidegger reminds us that fundamentally he remained a Swab peasant all his life. As such, he did not trust at all the modern project - and he not just simply opposed it, but systematically dismantled it. Technology and calculative thinking are denounced, and opposed to meditative thinking. On the other hand, the Plato-like dialogue is very abstract and deep. Representational thinking along with its subject-object distinction, willing, words that represent, science that assaults nature, and so on are denounced in favor of a thinking that is a commemoration, waits, is noble, gives thanks, is closely related to truth, is not human in its origins, and it is appropriated by “that-which-regions” (i.e., Being - who is not even mentioned by Heidegger in this book).
The introduction to this book and Heidegger is quite bad; and it covers almost half of this short book. The guy understands “Being and Time” as a subjective and failed project, he considers the Early Greeks naïve, understands thinking as a higher and peculiarly human characteristic, talks about the transcendence of the subject towards Being, praises representational thinking and its objects, and so on. Basically, mainstream and metaphysical thinking is trying to introduce to us a thinking that is both radical and anti-metaphysical. At some point Heidegger demanded that all his books should appear without any introduction – except that of the translator. This also points out why almost all secondary literature on Heidegger is bad and in fact is moving the reader away from Heidegger's thinking.
The introduction to this book and Heidegger is quite bad; and it covers almost half of this short book. The guy understands “Being and Time” as a subjective and failed project, he considers the Early Greeks naïve, understands thinking as a higher and peculiarly human characteristic, talks about the transcendence of the subject towards Being, praises representational thinking and its objects, and so on. Basically, mainstream and metaphysical thinking is trying to introduce to us a thinking that is both radical and anti-metaphysical. At some point Heidegger demanded that all his books should appear without any introduction – except that of the translator. This also points out why almost all secondary literature on Heidegger is bad and in fact is moving the reader away from Heidegger's thinking.
August 25, 2016
“Man today is in flight from thinking… But part of this flight is that man will neither see nor admit it. Man today will even flatly deny this flight from thinking.” - Quoted from Heidegger’s 1955 Memorial Address
Heidegger sharply distinguishes what he calls “calculative thinking” from “meditative thinking.” The former is the thinking of everyday practical affairs, adding things up, weighing pros and cons, solving problems, computing ever new possibilities which serve economical achievements and utilitarian ends. This calculative thinking is all around us, every day. And, apparently, in Heidegger’s day, he took on the role of a prophet who thought that his day and age, his homeland of Germany, was plagued by such obstinate calculation. For Heidegger, calculation is not true thinking. It is only quasi-thinking, one might say. It is useful, sure. But at our core, the nature of humans, the nature of truly human thinking, is much deeper, richer, and robust.
Heidegger thinks that our far-reaching plans, our many technological advancements, the many research projects we carry out, stressful political debates, etc. captivate us so well that we forget what robust thinking actually is. We trick ourselves into thinking that we are actually thinking. “Calculative thinking races from one prospect to the next. Calculative thinking is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.” Calculative thinking is thinking that is within the clutches of planning, organization, and automation.
Meditation, on the other hand, “demands more practice. It is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to wait as does the farmer, whether the seed will com up and ripen.” At bottom, Heidegger thinks that anyone can follow the path of meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. “Why? Because man is a thinking, that is, a meditating being.” Meditation (whatever it might mean in popular imagination) does not need to be high-flown or above the reach of ordinary understanding. In fact, “it is enough if we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest; upon that which concerns us, each one of us, here and now; here, on this patch of home ground; now, in the present hour of history.” It is enough that we wait, ponder, and let things show themselves to us, things that we would have missed had we rushed the process for the sake of consistency.
Meditation, he says, “demands of us not to cling one-sidedly to a single idea, nor to run down a one-track course of ideas. Meditative thinking demands of us that we engage ourselves with what at first sight does not go together at all.” It is marked by what he calls “releasement toward things” and “openness to the mystery.” The true death of the human race would not be our cessation at the hands of atomic bombs, but our being overrun by calculation. If someday calculation came to be accepted and practiced “as the only way of thinking,” such would be our end. The power concealed in modern technology determines the relation of man to that which exists: the whole world and all that is within it becomes an object open to the attacks of calculative thought, attacks that nothing can resist. “Nature becomes a gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for modern technology and industry.” Under the strict proficiency of calculation, the worst might happen—Heidegger fears: we become indifferent to meditation, totally thoughtless.
“And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature—that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive. Yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happen of themselves. They do not befall us accident. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking.”
This Memorial Address is then followed by a fictional (?) account of a conversation between a scientist, a teacher, and a scholar. It is famously entitled, “Conversation on a Country Path About Thinking.” It is, to be sure, a very difficult conversation to follow. And, after reading it multiple times, I find that I am just beginning to be taken up into the conversation on the path to thinking. The difficulty is that Heidegger is attempting to think what cannot be thought according to the guidelines of what we ordinarily mean by “thinking.” Normal thinking is when I (my ego) re-present objects or ideas which I perceive in my conscious mind, attach words to such objects or ideas, and categorize them into objects which exist “out there” present-at-hand. This sort of thinking is an activity of human willing, like when I choose to think about something, re-present it to myself, observe it, use it, categorize it, forget about it when I’m done, moving on to the next thought which I will quickly exhaust of value, again to move on, etc.
This is fundamentally different from the sort of thinking that Heidegger is interested in. This more deeper thinking is not one which hinges on my “will.” In fact, it is characterized by non-willing, by negation of my will, renouncing willing itself by being open to and dwelling-in the world, letting-in the releasement of that-which-regions—it is, at bottom, a “waiting” and a “patience.” At the end of the piece, Heidegger summarizes this type of thinking as “moving-into-nearness” or “letting-oneself-into-nearness.” It is, so we discover through the course of the conversation, the nature of man to think in this way: “Man, as in-dwelling in releasement to that-which-regions, would abide in the origin of his nature, which in consequence we may paraphrase: man is he who is made us of for the nature of truth. And so, abiding in his origin, man would be drawn to what is noble in his nature. He would have a presentiment of the noble mind.”
The introduction helpfully explains the difference between these types of thinking—a distinction which is one of the main themes of this text: “At one extreme is what Heidegger calls calculative thinking, which is characterized by human methods of approaching things, and by the fact that in calculative thinking we deal with things in our terms for our advantage. Yet there is a second sense of thinking… To begin to comprehend what is involved in this kind of thinking, we may observe, somewhat negatively, that it does not represent, that it does not construct a world of objects. By contrast to re-presentative thinking, it is thinking which allows content to emerge within awareness, thinking which is open to content. Now thinking which constructs a world of objects understands these objects; but meditative thinking begins with an awareness of the horizon rather than of the objects in ordinary understanding. Meditative thinking begins with an awareness of this kind, and so it begins with content which is given to it, the field of awareness itself.”
Also from the Introduction: "Meditative thinking characterizes man's true nature, his being, as openness in which he is partly identified with the given [that is, that-which-regions, the regioning]. Man becomes partly identified with the given by opening to it as, in turn, the given opens to him."
Consider a brief passage from the Conversation…
Scientist: “Authentic releasement consists in this: that man in his very nature belongs to that-which-regions, i.e., he is released to it.”
Scholar: “Not occasionally, but,—how shall we say it—prior to everything.”
Scientist: “The prior, of which we really can not think…”
Teacher: “… because the nature of thinking begins here.”
Scientist: “Thus man’s nature is released to that-which-regions in what is prior to thought.”
The Conversation beautifully closes with the following lines…
Scholar: “Then wonder can open what is locked?”
Scientist: “By way of waiting…”
Teacher: “… if this is released…”
Scholar: “…and human nature remains appropriated to that…”
Teacher: “… from whence we are called.”
Heidegger sharply distinguishes what he calls “calculative thinking” from “meditative thinking.” The former is the thinking of everyday practical affairs, adding things up, weighing pros and cons, solving problems, computing ever new possibilities which serve economical achievements and utilitarian ends. This calculative thinking is all around us, every day. And, apparently, in Heidegger’s day, he took on the role of a prophet who thought that his day and age, his homeland of Germany, was plagued by such obstinate calculation. For Heidegger, calculation is not true thinking. It is only quasi-thinking, one might say. It is useful, sure. But at our core, the nature of humans, the nature of truly human thinking, is much deeper, richer, and robust.
Heidegger thinks that our far-reaching plans, our many technological advancements, the many research projects we carry out, stressful political debates, etc. captivate us so well that we forget what robust thinking actually is. We trick ourselves into thinking that we are actually thinking. “Calculative thinking races from one prospect to the next. Calculative thinking is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.” Calculative thinking is thinking that is within the clutches of planning, organization, and automation.
Meditation, on the other hand, “demands more practice. It is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to wait as does the farmer, whether the seed will com up and ripen.” At bottom, Heidegger thinks that anyone can follow the path of meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. “Why? Because man is a thinking, that is, a meditating being.” Meditation (whatever it might mean in popular imagination) does not need to be high-flown or above the reach of ordinary understanding. In fact, “it is enough if we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest; upon that which concerns us, each one of us, here and now; here, on this patch of home ground; now, in the present hour of history.” It is enough that we wait, ponder, and let things show themselves to us, things that we would have missed had we rushed the process for the sake of consistency.
Meditation, he says, “demands of us not to cling one-sidedly to a single idea, nor to run down a one-track course of ideas. Meditative thinking demands of us that we engage ourselves with what at first sight does not go together at all.” It is marked by what he calls “releasement toward things” and “openness to the mystery.” The true death of the human race would not be our cessation at the hands of atomic bombs, but our being overrun by calculation. If someday calculation came to be accepted and practiced “as the only way of thinking,” such would be our end. The power concealed in modern technology determines the relation of man to that which exists: the whole world and all that is within it becomes an object open to the attacks of calculative thought, attacks that nothing can resist. “Nature becomes a gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for modern technology and industry.” Under the strict proficiency of calculation, the worst might happen—Heidegger fears: we become indifferent to meditation, totally thoughtless.
“And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature—that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive. Yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happen of themselves. They do not befall us accident. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking.”
This Memorial Address is then followed by a fictional (?) account of a conversation between a scientist, a teacher, and a scholar. It is famously entitled, “Conversation on a Country Path About Thinking.” It is, to be sure, a very difficult conversation to follow. And, after reading it multiple times, I find that I am just beginning to be taken up into the conversation on the path to thinking. The difficulty is that Heidegger is attempting to think what cannot be thought according to the guidelines of what we ordinarily mean by “thinking.” Normal thinking is when I (my ego) re-present objects or ideas which I perceive in my conscious mind, attach words to such objects or ideas, and categorize them into objects which exist “out there” present-at-hand. This sort of thinking is an activity of human willing, like when I choose to think about something, re-present it to myself, observe it, use it, categorize it, forget about it when I’m done, moving on to the next thought which I will quickly exhaust of value, again to move on, etc.
This is fundamentally different from the sort of thinking that Heidegger is interested in. This more deeper thinking is not one which hinges on my “will.” In fact, it is characterized by non-willing, by negation of my will, renouncing willing itself by being open to and dwelling-in the world, letting-in the releasement of that-which-regions—it is, at bottom, a “waiting” and a “patience.” At the end of the piece, Heidegger summarizes this type of thinking as “moving-into-nearness” or “letting-oneself-into-nearness.” It is, so we discover through the course of the conversation, the nature of man to think in this way: “Man, as in-dwelling in releasement to that-which-regions, would abide in the origin of his nature, which in consequence we may paraphrase: man is he who is made us of for the nature of truth. And so, abiding in his origin, man would be drawn to what is noble in his nature. He would have a presentiment of the noble mind.”
The introduction helpfully explains the difference between these types of thinking—a distinction which is one of the main themes of this text: “At one extreme is what Heidegger calls calculative thinking, which is characterized by human methods of approaching things, and by the fact that in calculative thinking we deal with things in our terms for our advantage. Yet there is a second sense of thinking… To begin to comprehend what is involved in this kind of thinking, we may observe, somewhat negatively, that it does not represent, that it does not construct a world of objects. By contrast to re-presentative thinking, it is thinking which allows content to emerge within awareness, thinking which is open to content. Now thinking which constructs a world of objects understands these objects; but meditative thinking begins with an awareness of the horizon rather than of the objects in ordinary understanding. Meditative thinking begins with an awareness of this kind, and so it begins with content which is given to it, the field of awareness itself.”
Also from the Introduction: "Meditative thinking characterizes man's true nature, his being, as openness in which he is partly identified with the given [that is, that-which-regions, the regioning]. Man becomes partly identified with the given by opening to it as, in turn, the given opens to him."
Consider a brief passage from the Conversation…
Scientist: “Authentic releasement consists in this: that man in his very nature belongs to that-which-regions, i.e., he is released to it.”
Scholar: “Not occasionally, but,—how shall we say it—prior to everything.”
Scientist: “The prior, of which we really can not think…”
Teacher: “… because the nature of thinking begins here.”
Scientist: “Thus man’s nature is released to that-which-regions in what is prior to thought.”
The Conversation beautifully closes with the following lines…
Scholar: “Then wonder can open what is locked?”
Scientist: “By way of waiting…”
Teacher: “… if this is released…”
Scholar: “…and human nature remains appropriated to that…”
Teacher: “… from whence we are called.”
November 22, 2015
This work is an important step upon the path of thinking, the thinking of the later Heidegger, focused on the thought around the word of the title: Gelassenheit, or Releasement (as it is translated here).
Those who reject the Conversation on a Country Path in favor of the Memorial Address miss the essential importance of Heidegger's thinking, and the place that the Conversation holds in that thinking. The Memorial Address speaks of thinking. It is of little value in relation to the Conversation, which is an attempt at expressing this thought itself, or the opening for this thought to occur; one might say an attempt at opening the spacing of thought as releasement.
Those that condemn the Conversation, thinking the Memorial Address is all that is of value here miss the mark completely. They are unready to translate themselves into the thought-to-come, in this translation termed meditative thinking.
Speaking of translation, sure, the translation of this work is clunky at times. But that is the risk that is run in translating a language already attempting the translation of a non-representational thinking.
Those who reject the Conversation on a Country Path in favor of the Memorial Address miss the essential importance of Heidegger's thinking, and the place that the Conversation holds in that thinking. The Memorial Address speaks of thinking. It is of little value in relation to the Conversation, which is an attempt at expressing this thought itself, or the opening for this thought to occur; one might say an attempt at opening the spacing of thought as releasement.
Those that condemn the Conversation, thinking the Memorial Address is all that is of value here miss the mark completely. They are unready to translate themselves into the thought-to-come, in this translation termed meditative thinking.
Speaking of translation, sure, the translation of this work is clunky at times. But that is the risk that is run in translating a language already attempting the translation of a non-representational thinking.
Read
June 4, 2023I cant rate this because i dont understand ur horizon metaphors martin
September 14, 2020
Heidegger es un completo visionario. En este breve pero intenso texto nos explica y abre los ojos respecto al hombre y al hoy. Adentrándose este en la técnica, deja de ver la naturaleza como ser en sí misma para verla como fuente de industria. Esto formula cambios en el pensamiento irremediables y provoca un devenir respecto al tiempo irreflexivo, apresurado, en el cual todo pasa sin que pase absolutamente nada en cada uno de los hombres. Aún así, al final del texto muestra un fortuito optimismo.
June 5, 2025
0 stars for the autochthony, 5 stars for the Gelassenheit.
January 9, 2022
I really respect Heidegger for bravely going at the crux of the ontological problem. While he fails to convince he has defined what thinking is, he convinces of the value of transcending, meditative thinking. Indeed, at the first phase of the atomic age, he has a warning against being forced into only narrow thinking:
There are three parts here, first a learned Introduction from John M. Anderson (July 29, 1914 – December 3, 1999), an American philosopher known for his expertise on post-Kantian philosophy, tying this together with Being and Time and other Heidegger writings. Then, there is a memorial lecture which mostly relates with the idea of meditative thinking. The final part is a three-way conversation by characters in the style of the ancient thinkers. This explores the hard to grasp concepts of regioning, "coming-into-the-nearness of distance", that-whichregions, etc. What mostly resonates with me on this reading is the "embrace the mystery" message of releasement.
...the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking.
What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then ? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special
nature-that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man's essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.
There are three parts here, first a learned Introduction from John M. Anderson (July 29, 1914 – December 3, 1999), an American philosopher known for his expertise on post-Kantian philosophy, tying this together with Being and Time and other Heidegger writings. Then, there is a memorial lecture which mostly relates with the idea of meditative thinking. The final part is a three-way conversation by characters in the style of the ancient thinkers. This explores the hard to grasp concepts of regioning, "coming-into-the-nearness of distance", that-whichregions, etc. What mostly resonates with me on this reading is the "embrace the mystery" message of releasement.
Teacher: . . . which higher acting is yet no activity.
Scientist: Then releasement lies-if we may use the word lie--beyond the distinction between activity and passivity. . .
Scholar: . . . because releasement does not belong to the
domain of the will.
Scientist : The transition from willing into releasement is
what seems difficult to me.
Teacher: And all the more, since the nature of releasement
is still hidden.
October 22, 2017
The 1959 Commerative Speech about Gelassenheit ('Releasement') is a light read, more like a footnote to the postwar philosophy of Heidegger, warning about calculating thinking as the greatest threat for humanity. His concern about the outcome of this kind of thinking is 'thoughtlessness', a concept that Heideggers former protégé Hannah Arendt would construe as the 'banality of evil' in a more political context concerning the psychological profile of Adolf Eichmann.
The three-way dialogue ('Conversation on a Country Path [Feldweg]'), written in 1944-1945 is the more interesting of the two texts when a scientist, a scholar and teacher debate about the true 'nature' [Wesen] of thinking - a meditative [besinnliches] way of thinking that lies beyond the human distinction of activity and passivity. A more challenging read that somehow echoes the plot of Tarkovsky's Stalker.
The problem with this 1962 edition is that the English translation often feels stilted, and the long-winded introduction would have worked better as a more 'thoughtful' afterword - one that would place these essays in a historical and philosophical context - instead of interpreting them beforehand. Overall, Heidegger's 'paths of thinking' are in the need of an up-to-date translation.
PS Again, to me, Heideggers notion of 'besinnliches Denken' strongly invokes Zen Buddhist meditation.
The three-way dialogue ('Conversation on a Country Path [Feldweg]'), written in 1944-1945 is the more interesting of the two texts when a scientist, a scholar and teacher debate about the true 'nature' [Wesen] of thinking - a meditative [besinnliches] way of thinking that lies beyond the human distinction of activity and passivity. A more challenging read that somehow echoes the plot of Tarkovsky's Stalker.
The problem with this 1962 edition is that the English translation often feels stilted, and the long-winded introduction would have worked better as a more 'thoughtful' afterword - one that would place these essays in a historical and philosophical context - instead of interpreting them beforehand. Overall, Heidegger's 'paths of thinking' are in the need of an up-to-date translation.
PS Again, to me, Heideggers notion of 'besinnliches Denken' strongly invokes Zen Buddhist meditation.
Read
November 10, 2024''Então, que grande perigo se aproxima? Então a máxima e mais eficaz sagacidade do planeamento e da invenção que calculam andaria a par da indiferença para com a reflexão, para com a ausência total de pensamentos. E então? Então o Homem teria renegado e rejeitado aquilo que tem de mais próprio, ou seja, o facto de ser um ser que reflecte. Por isso 0 importante é salvar essa essência do homem. Por isso 0 importante é manter desperta a reflexão.'' p. 26
''O pensamento seria, então, o chegar-à-proximidade'' p. 43
''A serenidade é, de facto, o libertar-se do representar transcendental e, assim, um prescindir do querer do horizonte.'' p. 57
''O pensamento seria, então, o chegar-à-proximidade'' p. 43
''A serenidade é, de facto, o libertar-se do representar transcendental e, assim, um prescindir do querer do horizonte.'' p. 57
July 12, 2023
Voimme ottaa tekniset objektit käyttöön niin kuin ne on otettava. Mutta voimme samalla jättää nämä objektit sikseen sellaisina, mikä ei sisimmässä ja olennaisessa koske meitä.
Heidegger on tässä nähdäkseni liialti optimisti. Toisaalta ihmisen olemus on jo tekninen ja on aina ollut tekninen (Bernard Stiegler). Heidegger yrittää kovasti ajatella tätä hankaluutta.
Heidegger on tässä nähdäkseni liialti optimisti. Toisaalta ihmisen olemus on jo tekninen ja on aina ollut tekninen (Bernard Stiegler). Heidegger yrittää kovasti ajatella tätä hankaluutta.
December 3, 2018
1. Memorial Address
“All of us, including those who think professionally, as it were, are often thought-poor; we all are far too easily thought-less,” says Heidegger. “Thoughtlessness is an uncanny (unheimlich) visitor in today’s world” (44). We think one thing after another, only to forget it just as easily—thinking is cheap, marked by quantity without quality. Yet while thinking lies fallow, we still possess the capacity to think—for humans are thinking beings. Only thinking beings can be thought-poor; rocks, which are not thinking beings, cannot be thought-poor. Similarly, a field can lie fallow, but a superhighway cannot. Even as we fall into thoughtlessness for a time, our capacity to think remains, just as eyes that have been closed shut might still be opened. We can lose only what we knowingly or unknowingly possess.
Today, modern man is in flight from thinking. This flight from thinking is pernicious since we do not know that this is the case. Even worse, we flat out deny it, pointing to all of the technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs we have attained. At no time in history has humanity accomplished such wonders! Yes, of course. Yet all of these feats are animated by mere “calculative thinking” (rechnendes Denken). Admitting that this way of thinking is indispensable and justified in its own way, it is, nonetheless, neither the only way to think, nor is it the most significant. For calculative thinking “never stops, never collects itself” (46). It is always serving specific purposes and seeking definitive results, striving to realize ever new, ever more promising economical possibilities. Calculative thinking never ponders its own essence nor contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.
“Meditative thinking” (besinnliches Denken) is very different. This way of thinking is not rushed, not cheap. It bides its time, waiting as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen. This way of thinking requires greater effort, more practice, and more delicate care than any genuine craft. Meditative thinking is not high-flown, nor is it the unique skill of professionals. Anyone, in fact, can follow the path of meditative thinking if only he dwells on what lies close and upon that which concerns us all—here and now.
Here and now, we find ourselves in the so-called “atomic age.” Everything that exists has fallen into the clutches of planning and calculation. The spirit of the age into which all of us were born appears before the one who ponders and meditates: the power of modern technology reigns over us. The power concealed in modern technology determines the way that man relates to that which is—i.e., to everything. The world now appears as an object open to the attacks of calculative thinking. Nature itself appears as one gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for technological industry and innovation. Film, television, air travel, news reporting, social media, and medical and nutritional technology are just the beginning. No one can foresee the radical changes to come in the future. Technological advancement will move faster and faster and, one fears, can never be stopped. Man has lost control over the forces of technology—they claim, enchain, and impose upon him. Modern man is held in the sway of technology and calculative thinking. We take notice of technology’s power, even marvel at the daring of scientific research—without meditating or pondering what any of it means. “The meaning pervading technology hides itself” (55).
Man’s only hope to resist this trend is meditative thinking, for it might free us to gain a clear vision in which we no longer view things only in a technical way. Then, perhaps, we will be able to relate to technology in a simple and relaxed way—using these technological devices as they ought to be used and summoning calculative thinking in the service of our true nature without allowing them to dominate us and lay waste to our essence as meditative beings. Meditative thinking frees us for “releasement toward things” (Gelassenheit zu den Dingen) and “openness to the mystery” (Offenheit für das Geheimnis). These two ways of comportment grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a totally different way. In this way, man’s essential nature (Menschenwesen) will be saved: we will remember our essential rootedness (Bodenständigkeit)— our immediate relation to Being—which calculative thinking and the forces of modern technology have caused us to forget.
2. Conversation on a Country Path about Thinking
The question concerning man’s nature is not a question about man. To determine the nature of man, then, we must look away from man. And if thinking is what distinguishes man’s nature, then we must also look away from thinking. Thinking, in the traditional sense, is understood as a re-presenting via a kind of willing (understood by Kant as spontaneity). This kind of thinking is precisely what we must look away from—thinking “as” willing. This way of thinking is called “calculative thinking” in the Memorial Address.
The mystery of man’s nature is his capacity for meditative thinking, a thinking that remains absolutely outside any kind of will—thinking “as” other than willing. Heidegger calls this thinking “releasement” (Gelassenheit). Only so far as we wean ourselves from willing, we contribute to the awakening of releasement. In this releasement, which we cannot effect ourselves, thinking is granted from somewhere else—for “I” have no will. But from where, exactly? Insofar as re-presentation is willing, we cannot re-present to ourselves this “somewhere else,” for it is beyond all willing and re-presenting. What, then, are we to do? “We are to do nothing but wait” (62). For meditative thinking consists in this waiting and patience.
Waiting and patience for what, exactly? “In waiting we leave open what we are waiting for” (68). This waiting releases itself into openness. This authentic releasement must wait upon that-which-regions and receive from it movement toward itself. In this releasement, man stays released to that-which-regions and is appropriated to it. We, thus, belong to that upon which we wait. Man’s nature is determined by this relation to that-which-regions. Man exists in this relation, and his very nature is this in-dwelling in releasement to that-which-regions. This is not an occasional experience. It is prior to everything—the nature of thinking begins here. Thinking is itself a thanking for this a priori givenness of Being. Here, in this authentic releasement, we have come to confront the ineffable: that human nature is appropriated by that-which-regions through itself. Calculative thinking misses this mystery by reducing all things to the subject-object relation and thinking “as” willing. But this way of thinking is forgetful of Being, forgetful of man’s essence as the being who is appropriated by Being, prior to willing. Meditative thinking is, essentially, a commemoration of this prior givenness of the Being of all beings. All thinking—including calculative thinking—is granted by Being.
“All of us, including those who think professionally, as it were, are often thought-poor; we all are far too easily thought-less,” says Heidegger. “Thoughtlessness is an uncanny (unheimlich) visitor in today’s world” (44). We think one thing after another, only to forget it just as easily—thinking is cheap, marked by quantity without quality. Yet while thinking lies fallow, we still possess the capacity to think—for humans are thinking beings. Only thinking beings can be thought-poor; rocks, which are not thinking beings, cannot be thought-poor. Similarly, a field can lie fallow, but a superhighway cannot. Even as we fall into thoughtlessness for a time, our capacity to think remains, just as eyes that have been closed shut might still be opened. We can lose only what we knowingly or unknowingly possess.
Today, modern man is in flight from thinking. This flight from thinking is pernicious since we do not know that this is the case. Even worse, we flat out deny it, pointing to all of the technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs we have attained. At no time in history has humanity accomplished such wonders! Yes, of course. Yet all of these feats are animated by mere “calculative thinking” (rechnendes Denken). Admitting that this way of thinking is indispensable and justified in its own way, it is, nonetheless, neither the only way to think, nor is it the most significant. For calculative thinking “never stops, never collects itself” (46). It is always serving specific purposes and seeking definitive results, striving to realize ever new, ever more promising economical possibilities. Calculative thinking never ponders its own essence nor contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.
“Meditative thinking” (besinnliches Denken) is very different. This way of thinking is not rushed, not cheap. It bides its time, waiting as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen. This way of thinking requires greater effort, more practice, and more delicate care than any genuine craft. Meditative thinking is not high-flown, nor is it the unique skill of professionals. Anyone, in fact, can follow the path of meditative thinking if only he dwells on what lies close and upon that which concerns us all—here and now.
Here and now, we find ourselves in the so-called “atomic age.” Everything that exists has fallen into the clutches of planning and calculation. The spirit of the age into which all of us were born appears before the one who ponders and meditates: the power of modern technology reigns over us. The power concealed in modern technology determines the way that man relates to that which is—i.e., to everything. The world now appears as an object open to the attacks of calculative thinking. Nature itself appears as one gigantic gasoline station, an energy source for technological industry and innovation. Film, television, air travel, news reporting, social media, and medical and nutritional technology are just the beginning. No one can foresee the radical changes to come in the future. Technological advancement will move faster and faster and, one fears, can never be stopped. Man has lost control over the forces of technology—they claim, enchain, and impose upon him. Modern man is held in the sway of technology and calculative thinking. We take notice of technology’s power, even marvel at the daring of scientific research—without meditating or pondering what any of it means. “The meaning pervading technology hides itself” (55).
Man’s only hope to resist this trend is meditative thinking, for it might free us to gain a clear vision in which we no longer view things only in a technical way. Then, perhaps, we will be able to relate to technology in a simple and relaxed way—using these technological devices as they ought to be used and summoning calculative thinking in the service of our true nature without allowing them to dominate us and lay waste to our essence as meditative beings. Meditative thinking frees us for “releasement toward things” (Gelassenheit zu den Dingen) and “openness to the mystery” (Offenheit für das Geheimnis). These two ways of comportment grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a totally different way. In this way, man’s essential nature (Menschenwesen) will be saved: we will remember our essential rootedness (Bodenständigkeit)— our immediate relation to Being—which calculative thinking and the forces of modern technology have caused us to forget.
2. Conversation on a Country Path about Thinking
The question concerning man’s nature is not a question about man. To determine the nature of man, then, we must look away from man. And if thinking is what distinguishes man’s nature, then we must also look away from thinking. Thinking, in the traditional sense, is understood as a re-presenting via a kind of willing (understood by Kant as spontaneity). This kind of thinking is precisely what we must look away from—thinking “as” willing. This way of thinking is called “calculative thinking” in the Memorial Address.
The mystery of man’s nature is his capacity for meditative thinking, a thinking that remains absolutely outside any kind of will—thinking “as” other than willing. Heidegger calls this thinking “releasement” (Gelassenheit). Only so far as we wean ourselves from willing, we contribute to the awakening of releasement. In this releasement, which we cannot effect ourselves, thinking is granted from somewhere else—for “I” have no will. But from where, exactly? Insofar as re-presentation is willing, we cannot re-present to ourselves this “somewhere else,” for it is beyond all willing and re-presenting. What, then, are we to do? “We are to do nothing but wait” (62). For meditative thinking consists in this waiting and patience.
Waiting and patience for what, exactly? “In waiting we leave open what we are waiting for” (68). This waiting releases itself into openness. This authentic releasement must wait upon that-which-regions and receive from it movement toward itself. In this releasement, man stays released to that-which-regions and is appropriated to it. We, thus, belong to that upon which we wait. Man’s nature is determined by this relation to that-which-regions. Man exists in this relation, and his very nature is this in-dwelling in releasement to that-which-regions. This is not an occasional experience. It is prior to everything—the nature of thinking begins here. Thinking is itself a thanking for this a priori givenness of Being. Here, in this authentic releasement, we have come to confront the ineffable: that human nature is appropriated by that-which-regions through itself. Calculative thinking misses this mystery by reducing all things to the subject-object relation and thinking “as” willing. But this way of thinking is forgetful of Being, forgetful of man’s essence as the being who is appropriated by Being, prior to willing. Meditative thinking is, essentially, a commemoration of this prior givenness of the Being of all beings. All thinking—including calculative thinking—is granted by Being.
February 5, 2021
Actually really enjoyed this -- my first experience with Heidegger. I need to circle back and read his earlier work. The memorial address is straightforward and super high-level, and the conversation is bang bang bang with a lot to digest in each remark. The introduction takes up half the book and does a nice job of explaining Heidegger's later thought. Read and reread, and wait, and resolve for truth, and maybe I'll get lucky.
Read
September 16, 2025'Hourly and daily they are chained to radio and television. Week after week the movies carry them off into uncommon, but often merely common, realms of the imagination, and give the illusion of a world that is no world. Picture magazines are everywhere available. All that with which modern techniques of communication stimulate, assail, and drive man—all that is already much closer to man today than his fields around his farmstead, closer than the sky over the earth, closer than the change from night to day, closer than the conventions and customs of his village, than the tradition of his native world.
...[Yet generally,] for all of us, the arrangements, devices, and machinery of technology are to a greater or lesser extent indispensable. It would be foolish to attack technology blindly. It would be shortsighted to condemn it as the work of the devil. We depend on technical devices; they even challenge us to ever greater advances. But suddenly and unaware we find ourselves so firmly shackled to these technical devices that we fall into bondage to them.
Still we can act otherwise. We can use technical devices, and yet with proper use also keep ourselves so free of them, that we may let go of them any time. We can use technical devices as they ought to be used, and also let them alone as something which does not affect our inner and real core. We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature.
...Our relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, that is, let them alone, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology which expresses "yes" and at the same time "no", by an old word, Gelassenheit [releasement toward things].
Having this comportment we no longer view things only in a technical way. It gives us clear vision and we notice that while the production and use of machines demands of us another relation to things, it is not a meaningless relation... There is in all technical processes a meaning not invented or made by us, which lays claim to what man does and leaves undone. The meaning pervading technology hides itself.
But if we explicitly and continuously heed the fact that such hidden meaning touches us everywhere in the world of technology, we stand at once within the realm of that which hides itself from us, and hides itself just in approaching us. That which shows itself and at the same time withdraws is the essential trait of what we call the mystery. I call the comportment which enables us to keep open to the meaning hidden in technology, openness to the mystery.
Releasement toward things and openness to the mystery belong together. They grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a totally different way. They promise us a new ground and foundation upon which we can stand and endure in the world of technology without being imperiled by it.
...The approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking... its peculiarity consists in the fact that whenever we plan, research, and organize, we always reckon with conditions that are given. We take them into account with the calculated intention of their serving specific purposes.
Calculative thinking computes. It computes ever new, ever more promising and at the same time more economical possibilities. Calculative thinking races from one prospect to the next. Calculative thinking never stops, never collects itself. Calculative thinking is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.
...There might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature—that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man's essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.
...Thoughtlessness is an uncanny visitor who comes and goes everywhere in today's world. For nowadays we take in everything in the quickest and cheapest way, only to forget it just as quickly, instantly. Thus one gathering follows on the heels of another.
But even while we are thoughtless, we do not give up our capacity to think. We rather use this capacity implicitly, though strangely: that is, in thoughtlessness we let it lie fallow. Still only that can lie fallow which in itself is a ground for growth, such as a field. An expressway, where nothing grows, cannot be a fallow field. Just as we can grow deaf only because we hear, just as we can grow old only because we were young; so we can grow thought-poor or even thought-less only because man at the core of his being has the capacity to think; has "spirit and reason" and is destined to think. We can only lose or, as the phrase goes, get loose from that which we knowingly or unknowingly possess.
...Yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happen of themselves. They do not befall us accidentally. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking... [Meditative thinking] is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to await as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen.
...If releasement toward things and openness to the mystery awaken within us, then we should arrive at a path that will lead to a new ground and foundation. In that ground the creativity which produces lasting works could strike new roots.'
...[Yet generally,] for all of us, the arrangements, devices, and machinery of technology are to a greater or lesser extent indispensable. It would be foolish to attack technology blindly. It would be shortsighted to condemn it as the work of the devil. We depend on technical devices; they even challenge us to ever greater advances. But suddenly and unaware we find ourselves so firmly shackled to these technical devices that we fall into bondage to them.
Still we can act otherwise. We can use technical devices, and yet with proper use also keep ourselves so free of them, that we may let go of them any time. We can use technical devices as they ought to be used, and also let them alone as something which does not affect our inner and real core. We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature.
...Our relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, that is, let them alone, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology which expresses "yes" and at the same time "no", by an old word, Gelassenheit [releasement toward things].
Having this comportment we no longer view things only in a technical way. It gives us clear vision and we notice that while the production and use of machines demands of us another relation to things, it is not a meaningless relation... There is in all technical processes a meaning not invented or made by us, which lays claim to what man does and leaves undone. The meaning pervading technology hides itself.
But if we explicitly and continuously heed the fact that such hidden meaning touches us everywhere in the world of technology, we stand at once within the realm of that which hides itself from us, and hides itself just in approaching us. That which shows itself and at the same time withdraws is the essential trait of what we call the mystery. I call the comportment which enables us to keep open to the meaning hidden in technology, openness to the mystery.
Releasement toward things and openness to the mystery belong together. They grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a totally different way. They promise us a new ground and foundation upon which we can stand and endure in the world of technology without being imperiled by it.
...The approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking... its peculiarity consists in the fact that whenever we plan, research, and organize, we always reckon with conditions that are given. We take them into account with the calculated intention of their serving specific purposes.
Calculative thinking computes. It computes ever new, ever more promising and at the same time more economical possibilities. Calculative thinking races from one prospect to the next. Calculative thinking never stops, never collects itself. Calculative thinking is not meditative thinking, not thinking which contemplates the meaning which reigns in everything that is.
...There might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature—that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man's essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive.
...Thoughtlessness is an uncanny visitor who comes and goes everywhere in today's world. For nowadays we take in everything in the quickest and cheapest way, only to forget it just as quickly, instantly. Thus one gathering follows on the heels of another.
But even while we are thoughtless, we do not give up our capacity to think. We rather use this capacity implicitly, though strangely: that is, in thoughtlessness we let it lie fallow. Still only that can lie fallow which in itself is a ground for growth, such as a field. An expressway, where nothing grows, cannot be a fallow field. Just as we can grow deaf only because we hear, just as we can grow old only because we were young; so we can grow thought-poor or even thought-less only because man at the core of his being has the capacity to think; has "spirit and reason" and is destined to think. We can only lose or, as the phrase goes, get loose from that which we knowingly or unknowingly possess.
...Yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happen of themselves. They do not befall us accidentally. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking... [Meditative thinking] is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to await as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen.
...If releasement toward things and openness to the mystery awaken within us, then we should arrive at a path that will lead to a new ground and foundation. In that ground the creativity which produces lasting works could strike new roots.'
May 3, 2011
This was read for Tom Sheehan's "Contemporary German Thought-Heidegger" course during the second semester of 1981/82 at Loyola University Chicago.
March 3, 2025
5 Sterne für Heideggers Rede. 4 Sterne aufgrund der angefügten Kommentare - die sind insgesamt etwas dünn, auch wenn es spannende Aspekte gibt.
Also zur Rede. In der Regel ist Heidegger-Lesen ein bisschen wie Gedichte-Lesen: Es lohnt sich immer, aber man kann das Gelesene nach der Lektüre auch nicht wirklich wiedergeben. Es stellt sich eher ein Gefühl ein, eine Ahnung, ein wortloses Verständnis.
Hier ist das anders; Heidegger nutzt bewusst einfache Sprache für ein unphilosophisches Publikum, sodass der Inhalt umso deutlicher hervortritt. Dennoch ist es keine durchargumentierte Analyse, kein Programm, kein Punkteplan. Der Charakter des Tastenden und Demütigen bleibt erhalten. Die für mich zentrale Stelle: „All das, womit die modernen technischen Nachrichteninstrumente den Menschen stündlich reizen, überfallen, umtreiben - all dies ist dem Menschen bereits heute viel näher als das eigene Ackerfeld rings um den Hof, näher als der Himmel überm Land, näher als der Stundengang von Tag und Nacht, näher als Brauch und Sitte im Dorf, näher als die Überlieferung der heimatlichen Welt“ (1955!)
Ausgangspunkt ist die Situation des Menschen im „Atomzeitalter“. Dieser heute ungebräuchliche Begriff zeigt an, dass seither mehrere Jahrzehnte vergangen sind - die Diagnose ist allerdings nach wie vor treffend. Denn Heidegger zielt auf ein Weltverhältnis, das von der Machbarkeit und Konstruierbarkeit der Umwelt durch den Menschen mittels Technik geprägt ist. Erhöhte Mobilität, gesteigerte Produktivität und eine fast überwundene Güterknappheit bedeuten ständige Geschäftigkeit und Massenhedonismus. Damit einher geht eine Informations- und Unterhaltungsgesellschaft. (Disclaimer: die meisten dieser Begriffe verwendet Heideger nicht.) Das zu Bedenkende ist der Verlust des Ursprünglichen, des Bodenständigen und Verwurzelt-Sein. Vor allem, ist das revolutionäre Geschehen nicht in der Kontrolle des Menschen ist - der Mensch ist mehr und mehr Objekt der Entwicklung. Letzteres sogar im wortwörtlichen Sinn, da die Konstruktion und Rekonstruktion der menschlichen Biologie denk- und machbar wird.
In dieser Weltsituation sei laut Heidegger Gelassenheit geboten. Sie ist die Haltung des gleichzeitigen Ja und Nein zu den Dingen - weder eine antizivilisatorische Verdammung der Technik, noch eine besinnungslose Euphorie. Stattdessen: „Wir können ‚Ja‘ sagen zur unumgänglichen Benützung der technischen Gegenstände, und wir können ‚Nein‘ sagen, insofern wir ihnen verwehren, dass sie uns ausschließlich beanspruchen und so unser Wesen verbiegen, verwirren und zuletzt veröden.“ So bestehe die Möglichkeit, offen zu sein für den sich verbergenden Sinn des Zeitalters; es ist somit ein hoffnungsvolles Denken - im vollen Bewusstsein der Gefahren der Zeit. Was nottut ist die Bewahrung des besinnlichen Nachdenkens; des Erinnern an das wesentlich Menschliche in einer auf den Menschen eindrängenden wissenschaftlich-technisch-medialen Zivilisation.
Also zur Rede. In der Regel ist Heidegger-Lesen ein bisschen wie Gedichte-Lesen: Es lohnt sich immer, aber man kann das Gelesene nach der Lektüre auch nicht wirklich wiedergeben. Es stellt sich eher ein Gefühl ein, eine Ahnung, ein wortloses Verständnis.
Hier ist das anders; Heidegger nutzt bewusst einfache Sprache für ein unphilosophisches Publikum, sodass der Inhalt umso deutlicher hervortritt. Dennoch ist es keine durchargumentierte Analyse, kein Programm, kein Punkteplan. Der Charakter des Tastenden und Demütigen bleibt erhalten. Die für mich zentrale Stelle: „All das, womit die modernen technischen Nachrichteninstrumente den Menschen stündlich reizen, überfallen, umtreiben - all dies ist dem Menschen bereits heute viel näher als das eigene Ackerfeld rings um den Hof, näher als der Himmel überm Land, näher als der Stundengang von Tag und Nacht, näher als Brauch und Sitte im Dorf, näher als die Überlieferung der heimatlichen Welt“ (1955!)
Ausgangspunkt ist die Situation des Menschen im „Atomzeitalter“. Dieser heute ungebräuchliche Begriff zeigt an, dass seither mehrere Jahrzehnte vergangen sind - die Diagnose ist allerdings nach wie vor treffend. Denn Heidegger zielt auf ein Weltverhältnis, das von der Machbarkeit und Konstruierbarkeit der Umwelt durch den Menschen mittels Technik geprägt ist. Erhöhte Mobilität, gesteigerte Produktivität und eine fast überwundene Güterknappheit bedeuten ständige Geschäftigkeit und Massenhedonismus. Damit einher geht eine Informations- und Unterhaltungsgesellschaft. (Disclaimer: die meisten dieser Begriffe verwendet Heideger nicht.) Das zu Bedenkende ist der Verlust des Ursprünglichen, des Bodenständigen und Verwurzelt-Sein. Vor allem, ist das revolutionäre Geschehen nicht in der Kontrolle des Menschen ist - der Mensch ist mehr und mehr Objekt der Entwicklung. Letzteres sogar im wortwörtlichen Sinn, da die Konstruktion und Rekonstruktion der menschlichen Biologie denk- und machbar wird.
In dieser Weltsituation sei laut Heidegger Gelassenheit geboten. Sie ist die Haltung des gleichzeitigen Ja und Nein zu den Dingen - weder eine antizivilisatorische Verdammung der Technik, noch eine besinnungslose Euphorie. Stattdessen: „Wir können ‚Ja‘ sagen zur unumgänglichen Benützung der technischen Gegenstände, und wir können ‚Nein‘ sagen, insofern wir ihnen verwehren, dass sie uns ausschließlich beanspruchen und so unser Wesen verbiegen, verwirren und zuletzt veröden.“ So bestehe die Möglichkeit, offen zu sein für den sich verbergenden Sinn des Zeitalters; es ist somit ein hoffnungsvolles Denken - im vollen Bewusstsein der Gefahren der Zeit. Was nottut ist die Bewahrung des besinnlichen Nachdenkens; des Erinnern an das wesentlich Menschliche in einer auf den Menschen eindrängenden wissenschaftlich-technisch-medialen Zivilisation.
April 21, 2021
Dacă cineva ne-ar arăta acum două picturi ale lui Paul Klee în original, pictate de acesta în anul morţii sale - acuarela Sfinţi văzuţi de la o fe reastră şi tabloul Moarte şi foc, pictat în tempera pe pânză -, am zăbovi îndelung în faţa lor, abandonând orice pretenţie de înţelegere nemijlocită. Dacă poetul Georg Trakl ne-ar recita el însuşi acum poemul Şapte cântece ale morţii, l-am putea asculta de mai multe ori, abandonând în cele din urmă orice pretenţie de înţelegere nemijlocită. Dacă Werner Heisenberg ne-ar expune în acest moment câteva dintre ideile sale de fizică teoretică, cu ajutorul cărora el caută să afle formula universului, probabil că n-ar exista decât cel mult doi sau trei dintre auditori care să-l poată urmări, în timp ce noi, ceilalţi, ar trebui să abandonăm atunci, fără nici cea mai mică obiecţie, orice pretenţie de înţelegere nemijlocită.
February 1, 2024
While certainly an interesting read, I'm not convinced that the effort to dwell with the source of thought without imposing any intentional structures onto it is successful. This results, as far as I can see, in Heidegger more or less repeating himself, finding different ways restate that thinking is not the intentional structures of understanding, throughout the last 2/3rds of the dialogue. To understand this source of thought, it is more productive in my opinion to observe the ways that one's understanding shifts during reflection in ways not already implicit in one's understanding. If I read Heidegger correctly, this shift of understanding that does not come from within the closed system of understanding is the effect of thinking. It's possible that my opinion of this text will improve as I read more Heidegger.
January 2, 2024
It was a challenging read, but for anyone with an interest in phenomenology or thinking about thought (metacognition), then I'd definitely recommend wading into this!
It might help to read Zahavi's Phenomenology: The Basics before diving in. If I didn't have the necessary intellectual framework to engage with the book, I wouldn't have had the ability to fully immerse myself within Heidegger's imagined conversation on a country path.
I don't know how this book would read to someone who hasn't taken a philosophy class in phenomenology or has an interest in psychology, but I can imagine it wouldn't be the easiest of reads and would probably leave the reader with the same blank stare as the individual on the cover.
It might help to read Zahavi's Phenomenology: The Basics before diving in. If I didn't have the necessary intellectual framework to engage with the book, I wouldn't have had the ability to fully immerse myself within Heidegger's imagined conversation on a country path.
I don't know how this book would read to someone who hasn't taken a philosophy class in phenomenology or has an interest in psychology, but I can imagine it wouldn't be the easiest of reads and would probably leave the reader with the same blank stare as the individual on the cover.
March 5, 2024
Maybe I'm reaching, but this sounds a lot like eastern philosophy. Perhaps it's because of the language barrier when using certain terms, such as 'that-which-regions', that can be found in a lot of translations into English. And it just sounds eerily similar. Not just because meditate was the chosen word for a new kind of thinking.
While the discourse is not impossible to follow, I imagine it is hard to reproduce in conversation. I'm a bit more partial towards the memorial address for its statements compared to the conversations as an outlined philosophy. Both are swift and pack a punch. German philosophy really is a lightning bolt.
I'd like to read more Heidegger at some point, however my reading taste buds might not be on board.
While the discourse is not impossible to follow, I imagine it is hard to reproduce in conversation. I'm a bit more partial towards the memorial address for its statements compared to the conversations as an outlined philosophy. Both are swift and pack a punch. German philosophy really is a lightning bolt.
I'd like to read more Heidegger at some point, however my reading taste buds might not be on board.
September 14, 2021
La Gelassenheit es un conferencia que realiza Heidegger en 1955 desde su tierra natal para la conmemoración de un musico, y si bien comienza con un agradecimiento a sus compatriotas, la temática de dicha conferencia es traer a colación la relación que el hombre está teniendo con la técnica, que como bien dice el autor no se puede abandonar y seria necio dicha pretensión, pero sí quiere llamar la atención del uso que se hace de los objetos de como estos nos terminan condicionando como existentes.
Soy una mala lectora de Heidegger porque el autor me cuesta muchísimo, pero este texto me ha gustado mucho más que otros.
Soy una mala lectora de Heidegger porque el autor me cuesta muchísimo, pero este texto me ha gustado mucho más que otros.
November 1, 2017
Martin Heidegger ya en 1955 nos cuenta como la tecnología va ganado territorio en nuestra forma de ser, de sentir y de pensar, o sea la forma en que condiciona nuestra vida en todos los sentidos. El pensar meditativo y el pensar calculador que más haya de plantearselos com un par de opuestos en realidad son complementarios, deben estar presente ambos, pero en forma equilibrada contrariamente a lo que sucede actualmente con los seres humanos donde el que predomina es el pensar calculador. Obra muy recomendable y de fácil lectura
March 22, 2020
Needless to say heavy duty Heidegger read.
It's about Gelassenheit (releasement) and the introduction which is as long as the original text itself is very informative.
Heidegger is light on his usual new vocabulary on this one which makes it a little easier to read.
Read the book to write a class (Philosophy of Technology) paper about Gelassenheit and found this book to be the core of Heidegger's thought on this topic.
It's about Gelassenheit (releasement) and the introduction which is as long as the original text itself is very informative.
Heidegger is light on his usual new vocabulary on this one which makes it a little easier to read.
Read the book to write a class (Philosophy of Technology) paper about Gelassenheit and found this book to be the core of Heidegger's thought on this topic.
June 25, 2023
Seems Heidegger was a Spinozist on the question of thought and truth. The idea of the return to the abiding expanse seems to be a grand rationalist theism. That-which-regions is something like the infinite intellect, where truth always comes back and rests in itself. Pretty nice, pretty deep. Good read.
January 30, 2025
In the regions of that-which-regions I found an opening to openness that provided in-dwelling in the nature of the region that is near the distance of thinking which is my nature in going toward the horizon of non-willing willingness to approach the truth of that-which-regions of which I have actively submitted and rested and returned.
September 12, 2017
One of the best discussions on the concept 'commemoration' I have ever enjoyed!
February 28, 2019
I definitely was not smart enough to understand all of this
August 2, 2019
Not bad for a stupid nazi.
Read
September 14, 2019مُعقد للغاية وصعب الفهم،...
October 11, 2020
Thinking about thinking sounds kind of counter-intuitive, but once you meditate a bit on the ideas presented, they click quite well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews