Heidegger: Most Overrated?

Posted on March 14, 2010
Filed Under Heidegger, Philosophy | 6 Comments

Lots of people have been talking about the most overrated philosopher the past month. Heidegger’s name came up a lot. (For one example among many, this Networkologies post) Let me say my own pick is Kant. Simply because I find him amazingly difficult to read – akin to how others see Derrida. (And I’ll be the first to admit that in some texts Derrida deserves the criticisms he receives) Second, I just don’t think he is that correct. Thirdly I think he has moral failings to the modern mind not so different than Heidegger. See this post at Splintered Mind, for example.

(OK, Heidegger is admittedly a more despicable person)

With Heidegger I think one problem is he’s become a bit of a cliche. A lot of what he says has become so commonplace that people don’t realize just how innovative it was at the time. Even I, who think Peirce brought up a lot of these ideas several decades earlier, have to admit that some of Heidegger’s focus was extremely original. Things like embodiment as fundament, externalism, theoretical knowledge parasitic on embodied practices, a refocus on being itself, and so forth.

I don’t necessarily think folks have to approach these questions via Heidegger. (Although I think it helpful if one does becomes familiar with his thought as there are some subtle differences from how these are typically considered in analytic philosophy)

One problem I think pops up in philosophy is this dogged sense in which one must read the major names promoting a view. This is much more common in the Continental tradition than the Analytic tradition, admittedly. Still, if philosophy is progressing one would think that we’d focus on the reasons for a position rather than historic figures. Often the innovator of an idea isn’t the best explainer of the idea. In physics we realize this right off and few read the original papers for major physics unless one is working on cutting edge papers. In philosophy this just isn’t the case.

A major difference, especially in the Continental tradition, is that there is a sense that one grapples hermeneutically with texts. That is one isn’t merely looking at fixed arguments. Rather one is grappling with the various ways to read a figure. The very notion of charitable readings means we try to read the figure as strongly as possible – which sometimes probably isn’t what he intended. Further, as Heidegger showed better than most, to read a philosophical text in terms of questions rather than answers is to retrace a process of thinking rather than simply being true to some figure’s beliefs.

I bring up this tangent, not just to point out a major difference between philosophy and physics, but to make a point about being overrated. To me the criteria for being overrated is to be a major figure everyone reads but which one simply doesn’t get much out of. I get a lot out of Heidegger when I read him. I don’t get a lot out of Kant.

Related posts:

  1. Heidegger and Science
  2. Damon Linker on Heidegger
  3. Heidegger vs. Levinas
  4. OOP on Heidegger
  5. Peirce and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
  6. Heidegger, Plotinus and Ereignis

Comments

6 Responses to “Heidegger: Most Overrated?”

I’m with you on the Kant thing. All the way in.

2 Michael Dorfman on March 16th, 2010 5:31 am

I try to take a “middle way” through Heidegger.

On the one hand, it is important not to dismiss him too easily, as many seem to want to do, for political reasons. The fact that he was a Nazi doesn’t make him less important to read; quite the contrary.

On the other hand, I think there is a great deal of mystification going on, both within the texts and in the relations to the texts.

I’m still trying to understand “Being and Time”, and at the moment, this means trying to understand Husserl well enough to understand the full implications of Heidegger’s critique.

And this, I think, is the (hidden) reason that many people want to dismiss Heidegger and Derrida– they take a lot of work.

I like Kant for lots of reason, mostly because I like a lot about his approach to moral and social philosophy. Not sure if anyone reads Kant because it is an enjoyable read.

Clark, you seem to have a skeptical view of moral and social philosophy. I wonder if this influences you view of Kant. If you have little use for moral philosophy, I would expect you to feel this way about Kant.

No, because I really enjoy John Stuart Mill even though I think the calculus problem of Utilitarianism is insolvable.

Michael’s point might be more apt. Kant might just be too much work when I perceive there to be little there – beyond some general moves.

I suspect Kant’s problem is in part how poorly his language translates into English. Or perhaps it is similarly awkward in the German as well.

I’ve never read Kant in German but my friends who have say it’s not much better.

Leave a Reply