Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction

I have developed the habit of reading one of the Very Short Introduction books each day during my lunch break. My current plan is to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Maybe I'll eventually get around to reading every book in the series. And a very good series it is. I've encountered only a couple of weak entries to the series (like Patrick Gardiner's woefully inadequate book on Kierkegaard), while several have been outstanding, such as Quentin Skinner's intro to Machiavelli and Simon Critchley's magnificent reflection on the difference between Continental and Anglo-American philosophy. Most of the books that I have read have tended to be closer in quality to Skinner and Critchley than to Gardiner. Happily, Michael Inwood's wonderfully little book on Heidegger is another excellent volume in the series. There are few if any philosophers more difficult to read than Heidegger. Frankly, my own belief is that he is a great deal more difficult than he needed to be. There is a tradition in German philosophy, noted and passionately criticized by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, of writing more obscurely than needed. The example of needlessly torturous philosophical writing was established by Immanuel Kant's immediate predecessors, especially the highly influential Christian Wolff and A.G. Baumgarten. Kant did not depart from their style of writing, nor did a succession of later German philosophers like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Schopenhauer was trilingual, able to speak French and English without an accent (he in fact pronounced his first name "Arthur" in English fashion, not "Artur" as in German). Although a self-styled Kantian, he thought David Hume the model of how someone should write philosophy, with straightforward prose, not relying on obscure terminology or inventing neologisms. His sometimes disciple Nietzsche agreed and they are among the very few Germans who wrote in a less prolix fashion (though there were occasional exceptions, like Hamann and to a degree Herder). Heidegger is hard primarily because he chose to write in a thick, turgid prose laced with countless neologisms. Understanding Heidegger becomes first and foremost cracking the code of his language. The great Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor says many of the things that Heidegger does, but in relatively easy to understand prose. As an example, contrast Taylor's work on the idea of authenticity and Heidegger's. In fact, Heidegger himself was often less opaque than he would be in his greatest work BEING AND TIME. He wrote the lectures that were later published as THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF PHENOMENOLOGY at precisely the time he was looking at the galleys for SEIN UND ZEIT. He covers there many of the same ideas that he broaches in his more famous work, but in relatively clear fashion. Dedicated Heideggerians insist that Heidegger wrote the way he did because he had to, because the difficulty of the ideas demanded it. I do not believe this. I believe tha

Any book on the philosopher Martin Heidegger, even an introduction, will contain numerous brow pursing passages. His valiant attempt to sweep up some 2000 years of philosophic dust necessitated voluminous neologisms and esoteric constructions. Though he remains controversial not only for this opacity but also for having joined the Nazi party, his influence has nonetheless mushroomed in recent years both in and outside of academia. Even sections of the Analytic school have embraced his irreverent and unconventional approach to some of the tradition's most intractable problems. Understanding the thick pudding text that goops up his work remains well worth the effort but nonetheless requires help. This not really all that short introduction will help those who have some familiarity with Heidegger speak, but absolute beginners may struggle with its largely academic tone. New terms appear can without introduction (e.g., "existentiall" pops up from the text unexpectedly at least once). True, there's a handy Heideggerese glossary at the back, but not explaining terms in context may throw the uninitiated. The book covers the usual territory of Heidegger introductions. A little biography gets followed up with expositions of the major themes comprising his magnum opus, "Being and Time": Being, Dasein, World, Being-In-The-World, care, throwness, etc. But it also dares to delve into the murky loch of Division II where the brave only venture. More fundamental terms such as "phenomenology" and "anxiety" receive mere skimmings while far more puzzling concepts such as "ecstatic time" and "Historiology" get multi-page discussions. Regardless, the latter discussions illuminate this dredge to the point of peaking interest. While some introductions excuse or completely ignore Division II (such as Blattner and Dreyfus) this one embraces the sludge. As such, those looking for basic material on the shadowy side of "Being and Time" should scan their pupils across this book's late chapters. The usual themes also get juxtaposed and sequenced differently here than in other introductions. For example, inauthenticty and the "They" appear early instead of in a later chapter on Heidegger's so-called "existentialist" themes. The rather Merleau-Pontyesque theme of "body" also makes a guest appearance. This will please some and possibly annoy others, but the unorthodox order allows for new and fresh conceptual comparisons. Pros and cons, as usual. A section on "The Origin of the Work of Art" also appears. This piece introduced the concepts of "earth" and elaborated on the notion of truth as "disclosedness." The famous examples of Van Gogh's peasant shoes (as a "world discloser") and the Greek Temple (as a "world originator") provide an intriguing glimpse into the "later Heidegger." Apart from a short final chapter on Heidegger's influence and politics, the book focuses almost exclusively on "Being and Time." Lastly, interesting photographs of the young and old Heidegger along

Heidegger was an obfuscator of the first order. Still, he had much to say as well as much influence on academia today. He is therefore worth getting to know. Rather then wade through several hundred pages of the deliberately (imo) opaque text in Being and Time, as I mistakenly did, this would be a nice start. Truth is, Heidegger's ideas are not all that complex, it is his language that gives the appearence of difficult thought. Inwood clarifies but succeeds in avoiding over simplification. Still, I believe someone could do an even better job of presenting Heidegger's thought to the average reader. Definitely recommended over any of those cartoon books on Heidegger which are not only too simple, but extremely dishonest and innacurate.

This is your standard garden-variety academic treatment of Heidegger, alright so far as it goes, but rather dry reading. One interesting feature is its short 4-page Glossary of Heidegger's German terminology. It also has an index in which one notes the total absence of any mention of Buddhism, Mahayana, Zen, or the 'Tao Te Ching' (a text which Heidegger worked on), despite the fact that Heidegger's thought quite often reminds one of the great Taoist and Buddhist thinkers.Anyone new to Heidegger who is looking for a good Introductory survey of the man and his thought would do much better to take a look at George Steiner's 'Martin Heidegger.' In contrast to Inwood, Steiner writes with real passion and leaves one with a desire to know more about this amazing thinker. In fact, Steiner's book is so good that you'll probably want to read it again. I was left wishing it had been two or three times longer.

This is the best short introduction to Heidegger's philosophy. The appendix covers a small dictionary on some of Heidegger's terms, which is very helpful for readers.