husserl's debate with heidegger in the margins of kant and the problem of metaphysics

8/13/2019 Husserl's Debate With Heidegger in the Margins of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics

1/32

http://www.cnphenomenology.com/modules/article/transfer.php/c7/1287/pdf

acessado em 11/05/2012

Husserl's deate with Heidegger in the margins of !ant and the "rolem of #etaphysics

:admin:200$%12%28 :&01

:()H*+ ,. "*-#,

:Husserl receied from #artin Heidegger a copy of his !ant and the "rolem of #etaphysics in

the summer of 1$2$ not long efore Husserl had determined to reread Heidegger's writings in order

to arrie at a definitie position on Heidegger's philosophy. ith this in iew Husserl reread and

made etensie marginal comments in eing and 3ime and !ant and the "rolem of #etaphysics.

3his essay y the translator of the remar4s in !"# offers some historical ac4ground and comment

on the importance of the remar4s in !"# and attempts to descrie Husserl's counterposition to

Heidegger on si issues that diided the two maor twentieth century philosophers.

+epartment of "hilosophy #ac#urray )ollege 6ac4sonille

ne of the saddest stories in twentieth century philosophy with dimensions of etrayal and

tragedy is that of the rea4down of the Husserl%Heidegger relationship. 3he rea4 ecame

clear to Husserl only after Heidegger had een elected % with Husserl's support % to succeed

Husserl at reiurg in 1$28. *fter Heidegger's 9desertion9 of phenomenology ecameinescapaly eident to Husserl he determined that he must deote seeral wee4s to an

intensie reiew of Heidegger's position as soon as possile: right after he finished

preparing his ormale und transcendentale -ogi4 for pulication. 3he main tet in this

proect was ein und ;eit


2/32

pulication of them simply indicated y giing the page and line numer in the

Heidegger tet where the remar4 appeared. 3he present essay was originally written to

sere as an introduction to its author's translation of Husserl's remar4s in !"# to e

pulished in a olume titled "sychological and 3ranscendental "henomenology and the

)onfrontation with Heideggerut essaygrew far too long for a susidiary introduction in

that olume. y Husserl *rchie orders the introduction had to e cut to ten manuscript

pages plus notes aout one%fourth of its original length. #an and orld howeer has

arranged to offer its readers the original introduction here as a more fully annotated

prolegomenon to Husserl's marginal remar4s in !"#.

*dmittedly Husserl's marginal remar4s in !"# do not reflect the same intense effort to

penetrate Heidegger's thought that one finds in his marginal notes in ;.& (n terms of

length Husserl's comments in the >erman tet as pulished in Husserl tudies occupy onlyone%third the numer of pages.5 (n addition pages 1%5 &?%121 and 125%1A7 contain no

reading mar4s or notes y Husserl at all % oer half of the 2?A pages of !"#. 3his suggests

that Husserl either read these pages with no intention of returning to the tet or that he

s4ipped large parts of the middle of the tet altogether.A

@eertheless we will in the first maor part of the present essay attempt to show that

Husserl's marginal remar4s in !"# are of continuing importance for seeral reasons. irst

many of Husserl's notations respond sustantiely and at length to Heidegger's tet and

dispute his statements articulating a clear counterposition to that of Heidegger on many

points. econd they are important ecause of the place in which they appear for the

content of !"# was to hae sered as a further part of ; ut shortly after pulishing it

Heidegger aandoned altogether the proect of a 9fundamental ontology97 although he did

not aandon the Buest for the 9meaning of eing.9 "ulished on the heels of his famous

9+aos -ectures9 with ,rnst )assirer!"# represents at least a certain closure in

Heidegger's pulic dialogue with @eo!antianism and y etension also in relation to the

@eo!antian tendencies in Husserl's phenomenology after the -ogical (nestigations. 3hird

the remar4s in !"# are important ecause !ant is a 4ey figure for oth Husserl and

Heidegger. 3his essay cannot do ustice to an elaoration of the two relationships to !ant

ut it will offer some remar4s on it and refer the reader to primary and secondary sources in

which the two relationships are eplored.8 ourth !"# is important as an eample %

indeed a prime eample % of Heidegger's method of +estru4tion or 9deconstruction.9

(n!"# Heidegger is 9deconstructing9 !ant's irst )ritiBue. 3his raises in Husserl's mind


3/32

3he second maor part of the present essay will sort out seeral points of Husserl's

counterposition in the margins of !"#. i themes in the 9deate9 will e discussed.

eaders who wish to do so may s4ip the first part and read only part two. ut readers who

wish an annotated discussion of the importance of the marginalia that goes into the

historical and philosophical ac4ground may find part one of interest. "refacing oth

discussions we offer some notes on when the tets in Buestion were written.

Heidegger proaly gae !"# to Husserl shortly after its pulication in late 6une or early

6uly of 1$2$. @o eact date is included with the inscription 9#it herDlichem >ru.. #.

Heidegger9 E9ith heartfelt greetings. #. Heidegger9F ut in a letter from !arl 6aspers to

Heidegger dated 6uly 1& 6aspers than4s him for sending the !ant oo4 and also

ac4nowledges receiing his ratherflowery encomium of *pril 8 celerating Husserl's 70th

irthday.$ *out the speech 6aspers remar4s that he has a few 9impertinent Buestions9presumaly aout the sincerity of Heidegger's laish praise of Husserl.10 (n any case since

we 4now 6aspers receied his copy of !"# during the wee4 or so efore 6uly 1& we can

assume that Husserl also receied his copy aout the same time %i.e. middle to late 6une or

early 6uly 1$2$.11

(t cannot e 4nown with any certainty when Husserl wrote his marginal remar4s in !"#.

Howeer Husserl states in his letter to "faender of 6anuary A 1$?1 that he decided he must

in 1$2$ arrie at 9a soer and definitie position on Heideggerian philosophy9 so when he

finished readying hisormal and 3ranscendental -ogic for pulication that year he deotedtwo months ofhis summer acation 9to the study of eing and 3ime as well as the recent

writings.912 (t would seem reasonale to assume that the 9recent writings9 to which Husserl

refers in this letter would hae included !"#that had appeared ust a month or so efore

and also Heidegger's essay 9Gom esen des >rundes9 which was included in the

estschrift Heidegger presented to Husserl on *pril 8 earlier that year celerating his 70th

irthday. n the other hand Heidegger's inaugural address in reiurg pulished as as

ist #etaphysi4 was gien on 6uly 2$ and not pulished until +ecemer 1$2$ so it was

proaly not among the 9recent writings9 to which Husserl refers.1?

(n any case as ist #etaphysi4 the topic Heidegger chose for his inaugural

address had asolutely nothing to do with Husserl's phenomenology. (ndeed Heidegger's

choice of suect was a glaring insult to Husserl.1&

e do 4now with certainty where a good numer of the notations especially

those in ; were written: 3remeDDo a resort on -a4e )omo in (taly where Husserl

acationed from mid%*ugust to early eptemer 1$2$.15 f course it is Buite possile that

some of the notations in !"# and in ; were made after Husserl's return to reiurg utgien the pulication of !"# ust efore Husserl left for (taly and gien the importance of

the content of this oo4 in relation to Husserl's thought it seems li4ely that at least some


4/32

and proaly most of the notations date from Husserl's (talian acation in *ugust and

eptemer of 1$2$ or shortly thereafter.

e can date Heidegger's final three wee4s of wor4 on !"# with greater certainty. rom

seeral sources we 4now that he addressed himself to this tas4 shortly after returning from

the 9+aos -ectures9 with ,rnst )assirer.1A 3his specially arranged 9lecture course9 was

offered during the period from #arch 17 to *pril A.17 (n a letter of *pril 12 to ,lisaeth

lochman after he returned to reiurg Heidegger said that after returning from +aos he

9slept for two days.9 *fter that he continues there was ,aster with ,lfride and the children

which included 9a fine hi4e to the chluchsee and from there up to the hut.918 o the

dating is pretty clear: a few days after returning from +aos approimately *pril 12

Heidegger moed up to his hut and deoted three wee4s or so to preparing for pulication

his lecture%course on !ant's )ritiBue of "ure eason from the winter semester of 1$27%1$28.1$

1. Husserl and Heidegger: ac4ground factors Husserl's marginal comments in !"# are

important as we hae indicated first ecause they gie us an intimate glimpse into

Husserl's reaction to Heidegger's interpretation of !ant at a 4ey time in their relationship.

3hey were not intended for pulic iewing so Husserl was spea4ing his mind. *lthough

large portions of !"# are without mar4ings or remar4s one still finds a good numer of

sustantie comments in it in a few cases at considerale length.

3hese alone ma4e the marginalia of interest to readers of Husserl. ut marginalia gain

additional significance ecause they are placed in a turning%point document in the

deelopment of Heidegger's early thought.

!"# is important we recall ecause the analysis of !ant's )ritiBue of "ure

eason presented in it was to hae een a continuation of eing and 3ime: "art

(. "art ( was to hae had three diisions of which only two were completed. "art (( was to

hae consisted of three diisions: 1= !ant's schematism and the doctrine of timeI 2=

+escartes' cogito sum and ?= *ristotle's treatises on time. !"# then would hae proided

the sustance of the first diision of "art ((. Heidegger himself eplicitly relates !"# to the

proect of ; in the preface to the fourth edition


5/32


6/32

phenomenology. 3hus een Husserl's rapprochement with the @eo!antians in his middle

period remains asically a tactical effort to interest them in phenomenology. (n the

!risishoweer Husserl is Buite fran4 aout the shortcomings of !ant.

Heidegger's eoling grasp of !ant is also releant in this connection

ecause !"# represents an effort y Heidegger to come to terms with !antian philosophy.

3his comple story cannot e adeBuately rehearsed here ut we will discuss a few maor

factors and refer the reader to some 4ey sources. 3he posthumously pulished lectures of

Heidegger during the #arurg period


7/32

93he formally indicating Eformal anDeigendeF hermeneutic9 says "oeggeler 9could ecome

a schematiDation ecause Husserl had stimulated Heidegger to a temporal interpretation of

the component moments of the !antian 'power of the imagination' and thus directed him to

!ant's doctrine of the schematism.9?1 o against his preious plans Heidegger in his 1$25%

1$2A lectures on logic 9went into !ant and showed how the three ,4stasen of timeare

related to the schemata.9?2

Jet in spite of his dets to !ant Heidegger was also critical of him ut in a distinctie way.

(n 4eeping with his method of +estru4tion he argued in !"# that !ant himself wanted to

oercome the metaphysics of idealism ut did not hae the means the conceptual tools % die

#ittel. hich is to say he did not hae a 9metaphysics of metaphysics.9 (n ontological

terms !ant did not eplore the eing of eing Edas ein des einsF ut only the eing of

eistent eings Edas ein des eiendenFI this 9fundamental ontology9 had to wait for ;.Heidegger's later pulic account of why he deserted Husserl's phenomenology inoled

!ant also. He stated: 9"henomenology in the Husserlian sense was deeloped into a

position prescried y +escartes !ant and ichte.9?? 3hat is to say it ecame a

transcendental and idealist philosophy that too4 human suectiity as its starting point

and sought to uncoer the intentional structure of the transcendental ego.

ut already in ; Heidegger had een attempting to aoid the traditional language of

suectiity and consciousness which had led Husserl to ta4e a form of transcendental

psychology as the propaedeutic to transcendental phenomenology. ,en the Husserlian

slogan 9;ur achen selstK9 % which Heidegger reinterpreted in ; % still entailed in

Heidegger's iew of Husserl that things themseles were oects of consciousness and thus

Husserl retreated to the standpoint of !antian idealism.?& (nstead of using such terms as

consciousness and transcendental suectiity Heidegger employed an ontological

terminology centered on the eing of +asein human eing%thereF and its finite temporal

caring future%oriented eing%in%the%world. -i4e Husserl Heidegger returned to the

unotrusie life%world ut this is an ontologically defined life%world. *nd it is in terms of

the ontological proect in ; that Heidegger interpreted !ant with a deconstructie iolence

that drew widespread protest.?5

3oday with the posthumous pulication of Heidegger's early lectures from the #arurg

period in the >esamtausgae it ecomes possile to gain a more nuanced picture of

Heidegger's *useinandersetDung not only with !ant ut also with Husserl in the #arurg

years.?A ranco Golpi in an etensie and illuminating article on this latter topic finds in

these early #arurg lectures a doule relation to Husserlian phenomenology: a repetition of

phenomenology and at the same time a radicaliDing of Husserl's proect.?7 3he amialence


8/32

Heidegger felt toward traditional philosophy Galpi argues he also felt toward Husserl

insofar as Husserl continued that traditionI yet Golpi insists: 9een where Heidegger's

critical tone ecomes louder and more insistent the eplicit ac4nowledgement of the

greatness of his teacher % as well as other great strugglers cheler aoe all % is neer

omitted.9?8

*lso Golpi notes Heidegger's proect in the #arurg lectures is always presented as an

ontological transformation of the phenomenological approach. or instance when his 1$25

summer semester lectures were offered they were titled 9"rolegomena to a "henomenology

of History and @ature of the )oncept of 3ime.9?$ (n these lectures Heidegger dedicates the

etensie 9preparatory portion9 to Husserl's 9phenomenological rea4through9 eyond

rentano referring to the 9three great discoeries9 of intentionality categorial intuition

and the function of the apriori.&0 Jet each of these discoeries Heidegger argues in thelectures must e more radically interpreted %perhaps we might say 9demythologiDed9 or

9interpreted deconstructiely9 so as to separate the rea4through insights from the

9metaphysical9 presuppositions of their proponent. rentano says Heidegger ased his

thin4ing on the essential character of the 9psychical9


9/32

argues with traditional concepts and need to e lierated. 9)ategorial acts9 he argues in

these lectures 9constitute a new oectiity which is always to e understood intentionally

and certainly does not mean that you ust somehow let things arise.9&? 3hat is to say: 9to

constitute does not mean constructing as ma4ing and getting ready ut the entity allowing

itself to e seen in its eing as an oect.9&& Golpi shows Heidegger in the #arurg years

wor4ing through and transforming Husserlian insights and terminology ut always with a

show of respect treating Husserl as a classical philosophical thin4er to whom he is deeply

indeted.

(n his discussion of 9the apriori9 in the 1$25 #arurg lectures Heidegger again formally

maintains the Husserlian and !antian term while transforming its contet and its meaning.

He discusses 9the threefold presentation of the apriori9 in a phenomenological contet in

terms of the following dimensions:

irst its uniersal readth and indifference oer against suectiity second the access to it

adamer

the essential issue at sta4e was the need for an ultimate grounding in consciousness and

transcendental suectiity.&A Husserl's insistence on the terminology and assumptions of

suectiity and consciousness and his freBuent references to psychology in the ritannica

*rticle and the *msterdam -ectures posed for Heidegger an 9insurmountale arrier.9

(ndeed >adamer asserts: 93he 'destruction' of the concept of 'consciousness' was Efor


10/32

HeideggerF necessary to regain the Buestion of eing.9&7 3his assertion ma4es it clear that

Husserl's ery ocaulary of science and psychology and his goal of an ultimate grounding

E-etDtegruendungF for 4nowledge stood totally at cross%purposes to Heidegger's Buest for

the 9meaning of eing.9 3hus Husserl's dream that Heidegger would carry forward his

ersion of phenomenology eentually ecame an ostacle in Heidegger's Buest % a Buest that

eentually too4 him into eplorations of the 9origin of the artwor49 @ietDsche Hoelderlin's

poetry the emracing of >elassenheit and reection of 9humanism9 and in general down

unscientific 9forest paths9 EHolDwegeF in search of a form of thin4ing that did not ma4e

9suectiity9 % either transcendental or psychological % its starting point.

2. 3hemes of Husserl's counterposition in !"# hat do we learn from these marginal

notations on Heidegger's interpretation of !ant in !"# or one thing we find that at this

point Husserl has clearly gien up on see4ing a reconciliation with Heidegger's generalposition. ather he is sharply ta4ing issue with Heidegger's reading of !ant. e find in the

margins an aundant sprin4ling of Buestion%mar4s eclamation points and nota ene E@F

mar4s not to mention comments and counter%arguments. 3hese may seem to the casual

reader to e Buite fragmentary yet on closer eamination they show themseles not to e an

inconsistent set of fragmentary remar4s ut a coherent counterposition on assertions made

y Heidegger in !"#.

e will focus on si maor themes. 3hey y no means represent all the topics in Husserl's

marginal notations ut they will suffice to set forth a fairly consistent counterposition

which we will formulate as a series of Buestions. irst on the issue of Heidegger's general

approach to !ant: (s !ant to e considered as an epistemologist or as a philosopher laying a

new foundation for metaphysics econd what is the significance of the finitude of human

4nowledge (s it necessary for Heidegger to posit what >od's 4nowledge must e li4e and

indeed can one really do this 3hird what does Heidegger mean y the 9ontological

synthesis9 and is it neededourth how is the transcendental self to e conceied ifth is

Heidegger's interpretie iolence ustified in relation to this tet of !ant ith is

Heidegger's Buestion: 9hat should e the foundation for a new transcendental

metaphysics9 hould it e philosophical anthropology or a finite +asein's preconceptual

comprehension of eing % or neither of these

irst the Buestion of Heidegger's general approach to !ant. Heidegger's approach to !ant

clearly represents a challenge to the @eo!antian interpretation of him as an

epistemologist.&8 (ndeed Heidegger's final step efore reising the manuscript for

pulication in 1$2$ was his deate with the @eo!antian philosopher ,rnst )assirer at

+aos. or )assirer and @eo!antians generally the irst )ritiBue represented the


11/32

philosophical foundation of a modern epistemology that freed itself of the prolematic

philosophical limitations of oth rationalism and empiricism. *s we hae noted for Husserl

it was +escartes more than !ant who mar4s the great turning point in modern philosophy.

(mportant as !ant's moe eyond the aporiae of rationalism and empiricism may hae

een !ant's great accomplishment was compromised according to Husserl ecause he did

not rigorously carry through the implications of his own transcendental philosophy. or

Husserl and the @eo!antians howeer !ant was to e seen as an epistemologist not a

metaphysician.

Heidegger howeer had other fish to fry. He ma4es the general approach of his !ant oo4

unamiguously clear in the preface to the first edition: 93his inestigation is deoted to

interpreting !ant's )ritiBue of "ure eason as laying the ground for metaphysics and thus

placing the prolem of metaphysics efore us as fundamental ontology.9&$ Heidegger goesso far as to assert in contrast to the @eo!antian interpretation of !ant that the irst

)ritiBue 9has nothing to do with a 'theory of 4nowledge9'

here clearly ta4ing note of Heidegger's seeming transformation of !ant's irst )ritiBue into

a wor4 on fundamental ontology. 3wo pages later


12/32


13/32

remains open9 Husserl writes 9+oes it follow9 *longside the sentence 9!nowledge is

primarily intuition i.e. a representing that immediately represents the eing itself9


14/32

terms of ;'s fundamental ontology. 3he ertatie synthesis of sensory intuition and

thought is for Heidegger an ontic process ut as he puts it in the opening sentence of the

second of the four maor diisions of the oo4 % a diision titled 9tages in )arrying 3hrough

the "roect of ECnfoldingF the (nner "ossiility of ntology9 % the issue Heidegger is now

inBuiring into is 9the essential possiility Eesensmoeglich4eitF of the ontological

synthesis9


15/32

and eings ut must e directed toward them to eist as +asein9


16/32

(n the two sections leading up to section ?& Heidegger eplores the relationship of the

transcendental imagination to time. ecause time is the asis of pure sensory intuition y

the transcendental imagination it only ta4es a single further step Heidegger notes to see

that time is definitie for the transcendental imagination


17/32

same9


18/32

grounds eerything whatsoeer is within time. till Husserl as he writes that 9an

immanent temporal horiDon is necessary9 seems to e agreeing with Heidegger. hat

Husserl seems to e saying here is that of course time is a component of the transcendental

egoI what others Husserl is all this tal4 aout what time is primordially. 3he Buestion of

the 9primordial essence9 of time seems unnecessary to him. hy is it so important here he

wonders. Heidegger seems to answer this Buestion in the net section when he asserts that

9primordial time ma4es possile the transcendental power of the imagination9


19/32

y then !"# was more an historic record of his thought than a foundation to uild on. His

concluding sentence in the second preface is ery Heideggerian: 93hin4ers learn from their

errors to e more perseering.9 Jes thin4ing is a ris4y usiness and Heidegger more than

others came to 4now this.

ut Heidegger did not wait until 1$50 to defend his interpretie iolence. *lready in

+iision 3hree of the !antoo4 Heidegger offered a pragmatic ustification of interpretie

iolence: 9)ertainly eery interpretation if it wants to wring from what the words say what

they want to say must use iolence. uch iolence howeer cannot simply e a roing

aritrariness. 3he power of an idea that sheds adance light must drie and lead the

eplication9

interpretation sheds on the fundamental ontology of ; ustifies his interpretie iolence.

@eedless to say 9wringing9 from a tet what it really wanted to say ut could not do so

ecause it was constrained y the thought%forms of the time is more than a little ris4y. 3heidea that a tet can 9want to say9 Ein renchouloir dire is translated as 9means9 a usage

possily on the side of HeideggerF something ut e 9constrained9 y the thought%forms of

the time such that it has to wait more than a century in order to e understood in the

contet of an eistential ontology of +asein must hae seemed strange to Husserl. till such

a iew would seem to find support in the Haermasian concept of a spea4ing that is

distorted y a 9false consciousness9 or een such reudian concepts of censorship and

repression. (n this case interpretation ecomes a it li4e psychoanalysis a discoering not

of what the patient intended consciously to say ut repressedI rather it ferrets out what the

tet unconsciously wanted to say. ut as Heidegger points out the thin4ing dialogue

etween thin4ers is a ris4y usiness. *nd it gets more ris4y when one is willing to use

interpretie iolence.

3he larger issue is Heidegger's whole proect of +estru4tion of finding what has een

9coered oer9 of saying what a thin4er admittedly did not say ut might hae said if only

he or she lied two hundred years or twenty%fie hundred years later. (t is hard enough to

grasp what a thin4er did say or what he or she intended to say ut to grasp what a thin4erdid not say and could not say ecause of the thought%forms of the times % ut was 9on the

way9 towards saying % certainly reBuires the etraordinary art of 9a thoughtful conersation


20/32

etween thin4ers.9 *nd as Heidegger rightly says in this ris4y usiness of thin4ing one can

go astray and ma4e mista4es. till if it sheds light on the forgotten Buestion of the meaning

of eing he holds such thin4ing is ustified. Husserl can only e shoc4ed at such leaps of

thought.

3he sith issue concerns Heidegger's reference to philosophical anthropology and his

characteriDation of 9finite9 +asein as possessing a preconceptual understanding of the

9eing of eings.9 "hilosophical anthropology is a one of contention etween Heidegger

and Husserl and the issue is complicated y Heidegger's close friend cheler's adocacy of a

philosophical anthropology.52 ithout this one has the impression Heidegger might hae

ta4en a different position in relation to it. Heidegger's discussion of philosophical

anthropology occurs in the fourth and final diision of !"#and it proo4es a maor

response from Husserl. *out half of Husserl's comments in terms of total numer ofwords occur in "art our although it occupies only the last forty pages of the olume


21/32

again underlines these words and puts @ in the margin. Husserl seems to e noting that

een Heidegger recogniDes the prolems in this concept. hen Heidegger goes on to assert

9(f the goal of philosophy lies in the wor4ing out of a world%iew then an anthropology will

hae to delimit the 'place of man in the cosmos ' 9


22/32

incompletenessF is sufficient to indicate this finitude


23/32

which leaes open no Buestion of essence for eings%as%such and for the entity with world . .

.9


24/32

( want to than4 "rofessor Hans%>eorg >adamer for his personal recollections of the

Husserl%Heidegger religionship and +ominic !aegi also at the Cniersity of Heidelerg

>ermany for helpful comments on my interpretations and for suggesting many sources on

which to chec4. ( also than4 6ean >rondin on #ontrLeal Cniersity )anada as well as am

(6sseling and oland reeur of the Husserl *rchies at -ouain for suggestions and

corrections of this essay. #y student assistant -isa >ilmore also made aluale corrections

of the final draft. inally ( deeply appreciate the ulright ellowship and aatical -eae

from #ac#urray )ollege that enaled me to study in Heidelerg during the 1$$5%1$$A

academic year using the "hilosophy eminar -irary whose resources made possile many

of the references to >erman articles and oo4s in the notes elow.

@otes

"art of this article will appear in the author's translation


25/32

Husserl

tudies cited aoe pp. ?%8 notes that we hae no way of 4nowing whether Husserl eer

read these other parts of the tet. reeur helpfully diides Husserl's remar4s in ; and !"#

into three categories: the first of these is asically inde words to tag the content of a

passage for future reference. He notes that there are ery few notes of this type in !"# utBuite a few in ; suggesting that Husserl read ; much more analytically than !"#. "age

references in this introduction will e to the original edition since that is the edition in

which the remar4s appear. #y translation of the marginal notes gies the corresponding

pages in >* ? and in the recent ,nglish translation y ichard 3aft.

7. (ronically Heidegger states in the preface to its fourth edition eurtstag9*4ademische #itteilungen die rgan gesamten (nteressen der

tudentenschaft an der *lert -udwigs%Cniersitaet reiurg im r. &th olume $th

emester @r. ?


26/32

11. "rofessor >adamer referred me to a lengthy unpulished letter from Heidegger to

Hannah *rendt dating from efore this final period in which Heidegger epresses to her at

length his ecitement as he wor4s on the )ritiBue of "ure eason. 3his would e an

important document in future research on this topic. 3he translator did not hae access tothis letter and could not erify its present eistence.

12. ee ,dmund Husserl riefwechselol. 2: +ie #aenomenologen ison in a letter dated eptemer

10 of that year refers to seeral wee4s 9am )omersee


27/32

1A. +aos is not a famous uniersity ut rather an international health spa and sport center

in the wiss *lps. * wiss doctor "eter #ueller arranged and sponsored this

special 9Hochschule9 lecture course. 3he +aos -ectures were a series of seen lectures

gien at +aos four y )assirer and three y Heidegger plus Buestions and answers

each adderssed to the other.

17. * summary of the lectures and a transcript of the important disputation etween

Heidegger and )assirer deried from notes ta4en at the time appears as an appendi in the

&th edition of !"#


28/32


29/32

25. ee note 22.

2A. 9andlungen in der !ant%*uffassung Heideggers9 in+urchlic4e * ?: ?0&%?11.

2$. ee !"# pp. 2&A%2&7I ,ng. trans. p. 172 and >* ?: 275. or an etensie and well

documented critical analysis of the Heidegger%)assirer encounter see #assimo

errari 9)assirer e Heidegger in margine ad alcune recenti pulicaDioni9eista di storia

della filosofia 2 raeser in his ,rnst )assirer


30/32

?&. ee #artin Heidegger 9 N Cer das "rinDip ';u den achen selst' 9a recently pulished

fragment dating from the 1$50's in Heidegger tudies ol. 11 * 20titled "rolegomena Dur >eschichte des ;eitegriffs


31/32

1$7$=. 3ranslated y 3heodore !isiel as History of the )oncept of 3ime: "rolegomena

10: pp. 87%$$. at und (ntersue4tiitN

&7. >adamer 9Heidegger und die prache9> 10: p. 25.

&8. tto "oeggeler in +er +en4weg #artin Heideggers ma4es this point in his aluale

discussion of the Husserl%Heidegger relationship pp. 80%87.

&$. 3he page references to !"# in the following discussion are to the first edition sincethose are the pages on which they appear in Husserl's copy of !"# ut in my translation of

the complete marginal remar4s the corresponding pages of the Heidegger tet in the fifth

edition and >* ? are also gien. or reasons of space they are omitted here.

50. 3he chapter occupies pp. 10A%1A0 in Heidegger: 3hrough "henomenology to 3hought


32/32

adamer has noted that Husserl

regarded oth Heidegger and cheler as two uncontrollale geniuses and dangerous

corruptors of phenomenology. adamer's commemoratie article 9#a cheler % der

Gerschwender9 in#a cheler im >egenwartsgeschehen der "hilosophie ed. "aul >ood

Eern/#unich: ran4e 1$75F pp. 12%1?.= n the other hand Heidegger found in the

effusie cheler a true dialogical partner with whom in +ecemer 1$27 he had 9day%long

night%long *useinandersetDungen and struggles.9 * 2A Eran4furt:

!lostermann 1$78F p. A?.= (n a recent article on the Heidegger%cheler relationship tto

"oeggeler goes so far as to assert that the dialogue etween Heidegger and cheler entailed

9a turn in phenomenological philosophy that went decisiely eyond its form in

Husserl.9 erhard "fafferott. "haenomenologische orschungen series

no. 28/2$. reiurg/#unich: *ler 1$$& pp. 1A$.= (ndeed according to "oeggeler 9the

new encounter with cheler transformed Heidegger's thin4ing and pushed it off the old

trac4s9

husserl's debate with heidegger in the margins of kant and the problem of metaphysics

Documents