Only a god can save us?

I have been quite discouraged by recent political events, particularly in the US Senate where the democrats continue to curl up in the fetal position, pee on themselves and ask for forgiveness. Secretary Strangelove and President Nimrod have admitted that the insurgency in Iraq is strong enough to continue for years. And though the citizenry are uneasy, not many people seem to care.

Amidst the current climate this infamous phrase of Heidegger’s came to mind. Of course, it occurred during the notorious Der Spiegel interview where Heidegger is attempting to settle accounts and fabricate more lies about his relationship to the Nazis movement. Without getting into the bottomless morass of that controversy, I wanted to take a moment and think about what is suggested by the phrase. It seems to me that there is something relevant to our current situation:

Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. That is not only true of philosophy but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poetizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering; for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder.

Traditionally, this quote has been seen in one of two ways. The obvious reading is that Heidegger has given up and thrown in the towel, that the overwhelming technological domination of the globe has taken hold to such degree that all is lost. The only thing left is to mourn the loss and wait for the next dispensation of Being to occur eons from now.

But the other way is to look at this quote (and the Der Spiegel interview in general) within the larger context of Heidegger’s body of work. What is of particular interest is the meaning of "god" and "save." Notice that Heidegger does not refer to the one God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, nor to the many Gods of Greek polytheism. The god he is referencing is associated with the "Es Gibt," that which grants the various dispensations of Being. What gives is not a thing and is not subject to human control. It gives because it gives.

Saving has a deep resonance for Heidegger and he deploys it in many contexts. Perhaps the most relevant is the appropriation of the Holderlin line "But where danger is, grows the saving power also."

This quote is referenced in "The Question Concerning Technology" where Heidegger identifies technology as dangerous for at least two reasons: (1) It threatens to obliterate our awareness of the "truth" of Being and (2) It threatens to contaminate all other alternative modes of revealing (like art and philosophy).

He now looks to apply Holderlin’s epigram to the extreme danger of Enframing. If Gestell is the extreme danger then the redemptive power must also lie within it: "the essence of technology must harbor in itself the growth of the saving power."

The key lies in the fact that Gestell not only commands us to disclose beings in terms of standing reserve - Gestell can only disclose beings in and through us. The world and all that is in it only reveals itself in the process of human activity. Though we are not in control of this process, we are an active participant to the degree that we "belong to the coming to pass of truth." The saving power reveals itself in our ability to bare witness to unconcealment as such, recognizing the dangers of the technological form of disclosure, and realizing that Enframing is only one mode of revealing among others. This is why Heidegger says that "all saving power must be of a higher essence than what is endangered, though at the same time kindred to it." The granting that sends technological disclosure is also the granting that has the power to send something else. It is in this insight that we are "granted" human freedom.

What I find compelling in this account is that it points to the contingency of all systems, no matter how monolithic they may appear. Though many find Heidegger’s account too fatalistic, he demonstrates that it is possible to grapple with an experience that we do not yet have words to describe. In doing so he begins the task of thinking of an alternative way of being.

There is much that I dislike about Heidegger: His Black Forest, tree hugging fetish, his Grecco-Germanic prejudice, and the fact that he was a rather despicable human being. But none of this eclipses the grandeur and audacity of his thought. He still was one of the great philosophers of the 20^th century. In revisiting his path of thinking I hope to get insight into our own way of being and living today. Consider this attempt a prolegomena to future work.

Comments

[Christoph]

Alain,

do you think the mystico-religious choice of words by Heidegger is the way to go to grapple with what we can not describe?

I must admit I suspect Heidegger of leading us up the garden, err, forest path, chasing an ontological boar of sorts no one has ever seen but many believe is there (a refined theology!). You might convince me otherwise, and I certainly agree his work is useful to reflect on the modern condition, especially our current sorry state of affairs. That in itself is more than most philosophers contribute, of course.

Look forward to your next piece of the puzzle.

[Alain]

Christoph

Thank you for the kind words. I have never been a "Heideggarian" and I am generally dismissive of his more apocalyptic pronouncements. The "ontological boar" definitely leads him at times toward a sort of reactive romanticism. And ofcourse his political choices are disturbing. But I am still struck by his ability to reframe traditional philosophic problems and address them from what appears to be an alternative space. This space at times has the look and feel of theology and perhaps ultimately it is simply a ruse. I am uncertain.

[mark kaplan]

Just a basic question, to begin with: why the article - ie 'a/the' god? it somehow suggests any god, as in, whichever god happens to fill the role. Or, what's needed is that structural position called god, the place of god, almost. does this make any sense???

[Alain]

Mark

I think your question makes perfect sense. The later Heidegger always seems wedded to a mysticism without any content. I agree that the "a/the" indicates that any god, or "event" for that matter, will fill the role. It is precisely the abstract, empty character of that which grants a "sending" that prevents us from anticipating concretely what is coming. This may be part of the reason Heidegger was personally so amenable to the Nazis. Europe between the wars was experiencing such an event and Hitler seemed to provide a means of ushering in a new relationship to Being. If the later Heidegger is more "passive" in his approach, it may be in part as a response to the disaster of his experience the Nazis.

Whether "god" as such is a structural necessity for his argument, I tend not to think so. Heidegger has described the "Es Gibt" in many ways, all of which have theological resonance. But I am perhaps naive to think one can work through these descriptions and come out with something different. Certainly Derrida was much more cautious in his view about our ability to get beyond theological concepts.

[hum]

alain, mark

to understand what heidegger means by "god" and "saving", it is necessary to go by way of heidegger's reading of holderlin.
(like it or not, it is not a "vague" reading.)

[Alain]

Hum

You are absolutely correct. I am someone who initially read Heidegger many years ago (10+). I have just started the enjoyable task of rereading him again. In this initial entry I purposely ignored the question of poesis because it requires so much background knowledge. If you would like to post something on any of Heidegger's readings of poets (Holderlin or others) please let me know. Otherwise I will eventually do so myself. But it will take me time. I am very rusty.

[hum]

alain,
given the question you raise vis-a-vis heidegger, and you interest in other posts regarding "messianism", may i recommend reading benjamin's texts on holderlin and german romanticism along with heidegger.

[Alain]

hum

That sounds great. What is the name of the text, or is it part of a larger collection?

[hum]

alain,
the benjamin texts in english:
- "two poems by friedrich holderlin" ( a stunning text written by benjamin in 1914 when he was but a baby, well before heidegger's "explication" with holderlin, and which adorno -- for one -- turned to in order to contest heidegger's interpretation. )
- "the concept of criticism in german romanticism" ( in which benjamin remarkably suggests that holderlin is the one who truly understood and surpassed romanticism. )

both texts are in vol.1 of the harvard university "selected writings." if you read french, i'd recommend the translation of the second text by philippe lacoue-labarthe, available as a seperate book in a cheapie flammarion edition. if you read german, well then...
i fear i'm already sounding like a prof -- nooo! -- but for a proper confrontation between benjamin and heidegger re holderlin, one might also consider benjamin's many texts on theater (which holderlin certainly engaged with ) and heidegger's significant silence on theater ( despite references to sophocles...)

[Alain]

Hum

My french is not up to snuff but I appreciate the references. Other than Illuminations, I have never taken the time to get into Benjamin but have always wanted to. I will definitely start. My interest in Messianism predates my encounter with Derrida and goes back to my Jewish roots. The righteous indignation, the call for economic justice, these were the themes that excited me when I was young. As a middle aged old goat I find myself returning to them.

Again thank you.

[Matt]

It's cloudy this morning:

http://www.sternen-todtnauberg.de/webcam.htm

(Yesterday afternoon the late afternoon light was burning up the hillside, the village itself in shadow.)

See also here:

http://www.freewebs.com/m3smg2/cottage.html

Clearly what Heidegger most lacked was a pond.

[Alain]

Matt

It might have balanced him out. Thanks.