Heidegger and Nietzsche (H & Greek)

Dear Chris

Your post sheds an interesting new light on this discussion, by raising =
the place of Nietzsche in Heidegger's thought and work, and by asking =
the question of the link between Nietzsche and the "turn" in his work.

There is clearly a modification of tone and emphasis in the Nietzsche =
lectures, although already in 1937 (again Gesamtausgabe 45, =
Grundprobleme der Philosophie) Heidegger is clearly arguing that =
Nietzsche and Hoelderlin are the "experience of the end" (Erfahrung des =
Endes) - S. 31, division (b) - "Die Erfahrung des Endes auf den Anfang =
der abenlaendischen Geschichte durch Hoelderlin und Nietzsche". =
Elsewhere, and after the Nietzsche lectures, it is more commonly Hegel =
and Nietzsche who are the "Vollendung" of metaphysics, though sometimes =
only Nietzsche and sometimes only Hegel. Sometimes it is all three, and =
sometimes Hegel, Schelling, and Hoelderlin. In this sense, Nietzsche =
always points towards the "new beginning" because he is that place where =
the first beginning comes to its fulfillment, its term (comes to its =
term to be seen for what it is for the first time, comes into its limit =
as a kind of disclosure).

You do not make explicit what you think the connection between the =
Nietzsche lectures and the "turn" is. I want to point up the following =
problems with the view you elaborated.

First, "turn" (sometimes "turning" or "reversal") is an English word, =
which does not correspond directly to any one particular German term - =
despite the almost universally held view that it exclusively translates =
the noun die Kehre from the verb Kehren, to turn. It first appears (as =
far as I know) as a "hermeneutic tool" for Heidegger in Loewith's work, =
though as an "Umkehre" "a turnaround", with connotations of a religious =
conversion, meaning the abandonment of the structural analytic of Dasein =
for the "thought of Being". "Turn" also routinely translates "die =
Wendung", "a change", but, and without paying much attention to the text =
and the meaning, it has even been used to translate the "Einschwenken", =
a rarer term Heidegger uses, meaning a "military wheel about".

Second, which "turn" are we talking about? We might wish to say - "well =
'die Kehre' of course". This is not so simple. Heidegger himself says =
(if we are to believe Heinrich Wiegand Petzet's report in 1966 in Auf =
einen Stern Zugehen) that the real "turn" in his thought takes place in =
the 1930 lecture Vom Wesen der Wahrheit. But there is no mention of die =
Kehre in the 1943 published text, only uses and compounds of the verb =
"wenden" (cf esp. the section entitled die Un-wahrheit als das Irre - =
section 7). However, in Gesamtausgabe 9, the Gesamtausgabe edition of =
Wegmarken in which Vom Wesen der Wahrheit was also published, and with =
the "Ranbermerkungen" - Heidegger's own marginal notes from his own copy =
of the text, in section 5 there is a margin-note next to the phrase
"Das Seinlassen ist in sich zugleich ein Verbergen. In der ek-sistenten =
Freiheit des Da-seins ereignet sich die Verbergung des Seienden im =
Ganzen, ist die Verborgenheit." THe margin-note reads "Der Sprung in =
die (im Ereignis wesende) Kehre." These marginal words are themselves =
almost word for word lifted from section 255 of the Beitraege zur =
Philosophie - Die Kehre im Ereignis. In 1961 in Richardson's famous =
book he (Heidegger) says "Das Denken der Kehre *ist* eine Wendung in =
meinen Denken."

I could go on, and hint at how the verb "einschwenken" seems to fit in, =
but I don't have time. The point is this - if there is a connection =
between the Nietzsche lectures and words and their compounds kehren, =
wenden, einschwenken, no-one has shown what it is yet, and no-one should =
take what it is for granted. Heidegger is already using all these verbs =
by 1936 and 37, when the Nietzsche lectures have only just begun. =20

I just don't accept that Heidegger was ever a "Nietzschean" nor that =
there was a "turn" at all in his work (despite the fact that everyone =
says there was - but you just interrogate what they say about it to =
isolate any common opinion between them about what this "turn" is, or =
where it is to be found. People are now claiming the turn took place as =
early as 1915 - just what does it mean to talk in this way - eventually =
someone will claim the turn predates Heidegger's birth - nearer the =
truth than anything else said about it so far - and then finally we will =
realise what it really is) but there is an understanding of "turning" =
(wenden, kehren, einschwenken) in his work which was already being =
carried out very early on indeed. =20

If you want the turn to be from the "meaning of being" toward the "truth =
of being" you have to remember that what Heidegger hears in these =
phrases is the meaning of BEING, truth of BEING, not MEANING of being, =
TRUTH of being, which latter is how we have to read them to sustain the =
argument - in other words he was enquiring into the being of meaning, =
the being of truth when he asked these questions. We hear the =
difference, he heard the same. Always, always it is being that is =
enquired into, not anything else.

Now we can to some extent turn to what your post speaks about. You =
quote Poeggeler's text:

>However, Heidegger's examination of Nietzsche finally comes to the
>experience that precisely the will and its wanting to create, as it =
becomes
>dominant in modern times, hinder an experience of the truth of being =
and
>thereby obstruct being open for what is essential, indeed the
>divine."(Martin Heidegger's Path of Thinking, p.86)

Let us try to reconcile this with the position outlined in the lecture =
Die Kehre, also outlined in section 7 of Vom Wesen der Wahrheit (the =
structure of these arguments is the same) that the new beginning will =
"turn out of" the deepest and most profoundly experienced completion of =
the first beginning. If this is so (the texts will confirm it is) then =
all this imaginative talk of "hindering" and "obstructing" can be seen =
for its nonsensicality - the completion is necessary to the new =
beginning - the one "turns out of" the other - as its deepest and most =
extreme possibility. (cf pp 41-43 of the Lovitt translation of Die =
Kehre).

I apologise for not translating some of the German in this post - I am =
in something of a rush this morning.

Hope this is of use.

Laurence Hemming


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Partial thread listing: