Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, centers on this debate between these two philosophical adversaries. In his book Gordon examines the background of the debate. Heidegger and/or Cassirer at Davos. GEOFFREY WAITE. Cornell University. There was a famous discussion between Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer in Davos . In Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger participated in a momentous debate in Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, centers on this debate between these two.
|Published (Last):||23 March 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Cassirer had cassjrer the debate with the question: Their disagreement can caxsirer understood only if we appreciate their common point of departure as thinkers of the German interwar crisis, an era of rebellion that touched all of the major philosophical movements of the day—life-philosophy, philosophical anthropology, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and existentialism.
The opposition of freedom and finitude nevertheless serves Gordon well for framing his narrative of the Davos debate. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Thus, Cassirer’s historical narratives committed him to some kind of recognition of human heicegger while Heidegger’s preoccupation with the possibility of making authentic choices led him in to celebrate the “will to power” of Germany’s Nazi youth.
The American Historical Review. Clearly, but if Heidegger was wearing one of his ski outfits it may have been a different story.
Cassirer’s career as a professor of philosophy at Hamburg and then as rector of that University and as the consummate interpreter of the Kantian tradition testifies to this fact. Over the favos eighty years the Davos encounter has acquired an allegorical significance, as if it marked an ultimate and irreparable rupture in twentieth-century Continental thought.
There was a total of 56 individual lectures that year by various distinguished speakers, several of them delivered by Cassirer and Heidegger. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Heidegger’s Being and Time, which had put him at the center of German philosophy inreadily incorporated all these new forces.
Heidegger’s provocative thesis was also to form the basis of the debate between him and Cassirer, which was the recognized high point of the entire seminar sessions at Davos. Heidegger agreed that “In this question of the going-beyond of finitude, there lies a quite central problem. Here is, perhaps, a place to disagree with Gordon’s assessment. Gordon reconstructs the debate between Heidegger and Cassirer, demonstrating its significance as a point of rupture in Continental heideggeer that implicated all the major philosophical movements of the day.
He grants accordingly that it would be “foolish to believe that Rosenzweig was ever much more than a minor curiosity within the larger drama of Continental philosophy.
In his last chapter, Gordon reviews the mythology that has grown up around the event. They were arguably the most important thinkers in Europe, and their exchange touched upon the most urgent questions in the history of philosophy: Cassirer, with more difficulty, also strove to accommodate these new energies by turning Kant’s epistemology into a historically and ethnologically oriented philosophy of symbolic forms.
Edward Lear is an apt character to think about at Christmas-time. Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos review “.
Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos
Through a close and painstaking analysis, Gordon dissects the exchange itself to reveal that it was at core a philosophical disagreement over what it means to be human. Over the last eighty years the Davos encounter has acquired an allegorical significance, as if it marked an ultimate and irreparable rupture in twentieth-century Continental thought.
These are certainly important cassurer for characterizing Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s work. At the core of their debate at Davos and, it turns out, at the core of their entire philosophical thought lay, as Gordon puts it, “a fundamental contest between two normative images of humanity,” p.
Fruitless as it was in the end for the two antagonists, the debate in fact stirred from the start an unusually wide interest.
But Gordon also shows how the life and work of these two philosophers remained closely intertwined. In Gordon’s final judgment, “the ultimate tragedy of the Davos encounter is not that it ended in victory for politics of the wrong kind.
Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos – Wikipedia
Attempts xavos revive his fortunes are, I am afraid, doomed to failure. Gordon is well aware of the decisive role of Heidegger in twentieth-century philosophy.
It remains, even today, a touchstone of philosophical memory. Gordon’s book presents us with a paradigm of what intellectual history should look like. He takes Cassirer to have been “indisputably” one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century and, even more volubly, “one of the greatest philosophers and intellectual historians to emerge from the cultural ferment of modern Germany.
Having given a broad first outline of Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s respective positions, he proceeds in his first chapter to analyze the situation of German philosophy at the time of the Davos encounter. The deeper tragedy is that it ended in politics at all.
You are commenting using your WordPress. Views Read Edit View history. Their disagreement can be understood only if we appreciate their common point of departure as thinkers of the German interwar crisis, an era of rebellion that touched all of the major philosophical movements of the day—life-philosophy, philosophical anthropology, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and existentialism.
The digital Loeb Classical Library loebclassics.