Martin Heidegger's Debt to Tolstoy
Due to a footnote that Heidegger appended to sec. 51 of Being and Time, "Being-toward-Death and the Everydayness of Da-Sein" (Joan Stambaugh translation), Heidegger scholars acknowledge his debt to Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich. But a careful reading of Being and Time (Division Two in particular) reveals that many of Heidegger's most stimulating discussions in that work may be traced to Tolstoy's novella: Being-toward-Death, authenticity, everydayness, attunement, the character of conscience as a "call" and, indeed, the call of care, summons and guilt, even the notion of "idle talk."
This is not intended as a criticism of Heidegger; it is, however, intended as a criticism of Heidegger scholarship insofar as it cultivates the "mystique" of the philosopher's originality and genius in lieu of reading Being and Time as an extended commentary upon The Death of Ivan Ilyich.
When one considers the length of the shadow that Tolstoy's later writings cast directly over the thought of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Camus, and then indirectly over all of the so-called Existentialist thinkers of the 20th century--especially Sartre--the neglect of Tolstoy's writings by professional philosophers working on Continental thought (in particular) is nothing short of scandalous.
posted by Sidi Hamid Benengeli | 10:22 AM
6 Comments:
What is really scandalous is the tedium that Heidegger imposed on the profound themes that were first explored by Tolstoy in a much more readable and interesting writing style.
I see, my dear Grappion, that you have never repented the common sense that led you to ridicule Heidegger in the presence of one of his faithful acolytes, and that resulted in your expulsion from a reading group of "free thinking" lawyers...
Begging your pardon Mazeppist, but I did not ridicule Martin. Rather, quite sincerely, I pointed out that Professor Heidegger, in the introduction to the book we were to read and discuss, had put the rabbit into the hat, the same rabbit that I could clearly see he intended to pull out over the next 150 (tedious) pages. And for this I was excoriated. But, we had, after all, just finished 10 years of reading Wittgenstein's Investigations, line by line, so perhaps I could not abide such sleight of hand anymore.
Now I recall. You were just applying the perspicacity and insights that Wittgenstein had made available to all of us; you hadn't realized that, with the move to Heidegger, we had entered the sacred precincts of self-delusion and mystification. Ah, well... With deep and continual reading of Tolstoy, Wittgenstein appears as indispensable as ever and even Heidegger becomes bearable--though not indispensable by any means.
Indeed, I can still feel the heat of the faithful acolyte's rejoinder. I must say, I was quite taken back (as were you by the look on your face at the time). Still though, that was a great group while it lasted.
And as to Tolstoy, it is my belief that the same insights that are brought out in his later works are present in the earlier novels. Just more diffuse. I can't say which I prefer, but it may be the novels.
I have actually read that copy of War and Peace that you had so thoughtfully given to me three times now. Only exceeded by my rereading of Moby Dick.
I agree with you about the later Tolstoy being worked out in the earlier. "A Confession" is really just a bit of stage-craft. Tolstoy's later fiction remained masterful--despite critical condescension that wants to dismiss his post-Confession output as unworthy of his talents. People will say anything to evade the Tolstoyan challenge...
Post a Comment
<< Home