Heidegger
January 3, 2010 9:52 AM Subscribe
What is the status of Heidegger in British and American analytic philosophy, and or philosophy in general?
My questions have two levels, in general terms, and also in pragmatic terms for a new student interested pursuing academic philosophy.
How do universities regard Heidegger as a thinker generally?
In what way is Heidegger studied in most universities (of which a majority are overwhelmingly analytic in focus, I believe. CMIIW.) By which I mean, to what end, or in what context is he studied.
How much of his thought is accepted, relevant directly to analytic philosophy?
In modern philosophy, same(ish) question as above, but more general. What is the majority view of Heidegger?
Feel free to take the question any way you wish; sorry if I haven't expressed it very clearly. I'm just very interested and unexperienced with academia and philosophy in general.
Thanks.
My questions have two levels, in general terms, and also in pragmatic terms for a new student interested pursuing academic philosophy.
How do universities regard Heidegger as a thinker generally?
In what way is Heidegger studied in most universities (of which a majority are overwhelmingly analytic in focus, I believe. CMIIW.) By which I mean, to what end, or in what context is he studied.
How much of his thought is accepted, relevant directly to analytic philosophy?
In modern philosophy, same(ish) question as above, but more general. What is the majority view of Heidegger?
Feel free to take the question any way you wish; sorry if I haven't expressed it very clearly. I'm just very interested and unexperienced with academia and philosophy in general.
Thanks.
Richard rorty has done a lot of work on heideggar. Here is the amazon link cause i can't figure out the hyper links on my iPhone:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/183-7752090-0045850?a=0521358787
posted by afu at 10:24 AM on January 3, 2010
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/183-7752090-0045850?a=0521358787
posted by afu at 10:24 AM on January 3, 2010
There are some universities with largely analytic philosophy departments where you'd only ever hear of Heidegger as the butt of jokes. Not to say that these jokes stem from disrespect, just that Heidegger kind of has a funny name and there'd be no other context where he's discussed. (And some of the jokes would stem from disrespect for both him and continentalists in general. Not all of them, though.)
There are other universities with largely analytic philosophy departments where you'd maybe be able to take one class as an undergraduate where Heidegger would be discussed, but that'd be it. It'd be one part of an education in the history of philosophy, and then you'd move on. It'd be rare for a department like this to have grad students who work on, or even know much about Heidegger.
As with all philosophic subjects, what's taught depends on what the professors know, and what the professors know is a highly personal issue. You're less likely to find a Heidegger scholar than you are to find, say, a Wittgensteinian or a Quineian at any campus that identifies as analytic, and it would be foolish to attend a school whose philosophy department pridefully calls itself analytic if you want to study Heidegger... But it's not completely unlikely that you could run across someone who knows something about Heidegger in such a department.
None of this means that analytic philosophers, on a whole, don't respect Heidegger. He just doesn't come up that often. I'm also not discussing at all what literature in the American analytic philosophical vein you may find about Heidegger. Instead, this is all just how likely I think an undergraduate student is to learn about Heidegger at such a school.
(I specifically discuss schools that identify themselves as analytic because that says something about the atmosphere and viewpoints of the philosophers there. Whether there actually can be said to be a distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is a contentious matter, and there are a lot of places where the faculty is just a hodgepodge of analytic, continental, and not-really-either that you couldn't really classify them, as a whole. What you would learn about Heidegger in such a place would be just a highly contingent matter of personality, background, and circumstance. It'd be a bit easier to provide most specific advice about how to pick a school or what-not if you explained a bit more about your background and where in your education you are.)
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:43 AM on January 3, 2010
There are other universities with largely analytic philosophy departments where you'd maybe be able to take one class as an undergraduate where Heidegger would be discussed, but that'd be it. It'd be one part of an education in the history of philosophy, and then you'd move on. It'd be rare for a department like this to have grad students who work on, or even know much about Heidegger.
As with all philosophic subjects, what's taught depends on what the professors know, and what the professors know is a highly personal issue. You're less likely to find a Heidegger scholar than you are to find, say, a Wittgensteinian or a Quineian at any campus that identifies as analytic, and it would be foolish to attend a school whose philosophy department pridefully calls itself analytic if you want to study Heidegger... But it's not completely unlikely that you could run across someone who knows something about Heidegger in such a department.
None of this means that analytic philosophers, on a whole, don't respect Heidegger. He just doesn't come up that often. I'm also not discussing at all what literature in the American analytic philosophical vein you may find about Heidegger. Instead, this is all just how likely I think an undergraduate student is to learn about Heidegger at such a school.
(I specifically discuss schools that identify themselves as analytic because that says something about the atmosphere and viewpoints of the philosophers there. Whether there actually can be said to be a distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is a contentious matter, and there are a lot of places where the faculty is just a hodgepodge of analytic, continental, and not-really-either that you couldn't really classify them, as a whole. What you would learn about Heidegger in such a place would be just a highly contingent matter of personality, background, and circumstance. It'd be a bit easier to provide most specific advice about how to pick a school or what-not if you explained a bit more about your background and where in your education you are.)
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:43 AM on January 3, 2010
Graham Harman's been recently rethinking Heidegger's analysis of tools (etc.) in his speculative materialist/realist theorizing: Harman's blog; recent metafilter thread.
posted by rumbles at 1:26 PM on January 3, 2010
posted by rumbles at 1:26 PM on January 3, 2010
I've been out of college nearly 40 years, but in college I read both Nietzsche and Heidegger in German (as well as English translations, of course), and my observation at that time was as follows: Reading Nietzsche was like looking into a crystal clear lake. His writing style was lucid and compelling. (Like his favorite poet, Heinrich Heine.)
Reading Heidegger, by contrast, was looking into a muddy raging river. No one (American or German) really knew what the hell he was talking about, but many people made a fuss because he sounded important and deep.
posted by megatherium at 7:46 PM on January 3, 2010
Reading Heidegger, by contrast, was looking into a muddy raging river. No one (American or German) really knew what the hell he was talking about, but many people made a fuss because he sounded important and deep.
posted by megatherium at 7:46 PM on January 3, 2010
Best answer: Not to say that these jokes stem from disrespect, just that Heidegger kind of has a funny name and there'd be no other context where he's discussed. [...] None of this means that analytic philosophers, on a whole, don't respect Heidegger. He just doesn't come up that often.
Analytic philosophers don't just think Heidegger is a just minor or amusing figure. They don't respect Heidegger at all. Given that the asker is hoping for practical advice, there's no point mincing words in order to be politically judicious: it is nearly universally acknowledged at departments ranked highly in the Leiter Report (top twenty, let's say) that Heidegger was a blight on philosophy. Reactions toward him are visceral. He offends people. I'm at a pretty highly ranked analytic department and spend time at others in the area, and nearly every single professor and graduate student I can think of thinks that Heidegger is not a philosopher but a muddled poseur who gives philosophy a bad name.
ashaw, you say that you're curious about this issue for pragmatic reasons... why is that? Are you applying to graduate programs in philosophy? If you are branding yourself as a Heidegger scholar, direct your applications pointedly toward continental departments or Heidegger scholars at analytic departments. Don't even bother applying to hyper-analytic places like Rutgers or Princeton --- it'll be a waste of application money. If you have a writing sample on conceptual schemes or on virtue or on something not expressly about Heidegger, but you are wondering whether it is a good idea to cite him or engage with him in your paper, I encourage you not to.
posted by painquale at 12:35 AM on January 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Analytic philosophers don't just think Heidegger is a just minor or amusing figure. They don't respect Heidegger at all. Given that the asker is hoping for practical advice, there's no point mincing words in order to be politically judicious: it is nearly universally acknowledged at departments ranked highly in the Leiter Report (top twenty, let's say) that Heidegger was a blight on philosophy. Reactions toward him are visceral. He offends people. I'm at a pretty highly ranked analytic department and spend time at others in the area, and nearly every single professor and graduate student I can think of thinks that Heidegger is not a philosopher but a muddled poseur who gives philosophy a bad name.
ashaw, you say that you're curious about this issue for pragmatic reasons... why is that? Are you applying to graduate programs in philosophy? If you are branding yourself as a Heidegger scholar, direct your applications pointedly toward continental departments or Heidegger scholars at analytic departments. Don't even bother applying to hyper-analytic places like Rutgers or Princeton --- it'll be a waste of application money. If you have a writing sample on conceptual schemes or on virtue or on something not expressly about Heidegger, but you are wondering whether it is a good idea to cite him or engage with him in your paper, I encourage you not to.
posted by painquale at 12:35 AM on January 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Thinking back on it, in undergrad Heidegger was brought up as an extension of studying Husserl and only in my phenomenology class. However, it's possible that he may have been briefly mentioned in our 19th century survey class - but, well, everything starts to run together at a certain point so I am not certain.
posted by Burritos Inc. at 12:05 PM on January 4, 2010
posted by Burritos Inc. at 12:05 PM on January 4, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nangua at 9:58 AM on January 3, 2010