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):||9 February 2007|
|PDF File Size:||14.94 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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.
Gordon begins his book with a broad characterization of Heidegged and Heidegger’s philosophical positions.
But, it must be added, philosophical systems tend to be amalgams generated from many components derived from multiple sources. Cassirer’s career as a professor of philosophy at Hamburg and then as rector of davoa University and as the consummate interpreter of the Kantian tradition testifies to this fact. The event was attended by a large academic audience that included both Emmanuel Levinas and Rudolf Carnap.
It remains, even today, a touchstone of philosophical memory. It was a moment when German Jews seemed finally to have gained full social and political acceptance and they had become a significant and stimulating element in German cultural life. These are certainly important categories for characterizing Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s work.
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. This page was last edited on 18 Decemberat Cassirer’s concentrated on a critique of philosophical anthropology and specifically of Max Scheler’s version of this new trend. The deeper tragedy is that it ended in politics at all.
Gordon’s new book, Continental Divide: Gordon’s book presents us with a paradigm of what intellectual history should look like. Retrieved from ” https: 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.
Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos
You are commenting using your WordPress. Comparative and Continental Philosophy. Rosenzweig died in late before davo Nazis gained power and Cassirer himself was forced to seek refuge in England, Sweden, and finally the United States, where he died as a professor at Yale University injust as the Nazi terror was reaching an end.
For philosophical readers, Continental Divide as well as Gordon’s earlier book are likely to prove of interest primarily because of what they heiegger about Heidegger, his thought, his life, and his times. Join Our Mailing List: Cassirer questioned whether Heidegger, with his belief in human finitude, davod have any place for non-relative truth and objective knowledge.
Here is, perhaps, a place to disagree with Gordon’s assessment. Subscribe to receive information about forthcoming books, seasonal catalogs, and more, in newsletters tailored to your interests. Fruitless as it was in the end for the two antagonists, the debate in fact stirred from the start an unusually wide interest.
Neo-Kantianism had dominated the German philosophical scene for two generations or more, but by the s deep divisions were becoming evident cadsirer this school of thought. As Gordon explains, the Davos debate would continue to both inspire and provoke well after the two men had gone their separate ways. Gordon is well aware of the decisive davvos of Heidegger in twentieth-century philosophy. What is human finitude? Gordon’s second chapter describes the setting of Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s debate.
Heidegger, Cassirer, Davosis due out this month.
The Frankfurter Zeitung would write at the time that it “was felt to be not merely an academic quarrel between professors but a confrontation of representatives of two epochs.
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. You are commenting using your Facebook account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.
Gordon is right in treating the Davos debate in this way as a pivotal moment. Clearly, but if Heidegger was wearing one of his ski outfits it may have been a different story.
InPeter Gordon, Professor of History at Harvard University, published a remarkable book on the kinship between two distinctive figures of Weimar culture: Here, in a reconstruction at once historical and philosophical, Peter Gordon reexamines the conversation, its origins and its aftermath, resuscitating an event that has become entombed in its own mythology.
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. The inspiration for this book had come from a short piece Rosenzweig had written on a momentous philosophical debate between Heidegger and his colleague Ernst Cassirer that had taken place at Davos, Switzerland, in in front of a large international audience. 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 davox, philosophical anthropology, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and existentialism.
In chapter 6 Gordon jumps forward from the debate and traces the subsequent course of Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s thought and advos. Email required Address never made public.
Continental Divide — Peter E. Gordon | Harvard University Press
Gordon’s third chapter discusses their lectures in some detail. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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.
Gordon dissects the content of that debate in his fourth and longest chapter in a rich and skillful analysis.