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.

Author: Tygokazahn Kejinn
Country: Slovenia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 14 June 2017
Pages: 103
PDF File Size: 6.83 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.22 Mb
ISBN: 522-5-49214-368-7
Downloads: 74052
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faeshakar

They were arguably the most important thinkers in Europe, and their exchange touched upon the most urgent questions in the history of philosophy: The book can usefully be read as a sequel to Gordon’s earlier work, for the two books together draw an extraordinary picture of a unique moment in the history of twentieth-century German philosophy and culture. You are commenting using your Facebook account. 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.

But, it must be added, philosophical systems tend to be amalgams generated from many components derived from multiple sources.

Where neo-Kantian Cassirer saw human beings as gifted cassjrer a capacity for “spontaneous self-expression” and thus endowed with “a complete freedom” to create worlds of meaning, Heidegger envisaged them to be determined by their “finitude” and thus as living in the midst of conditions they have not created and cannot hope to control. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Cassirer–Heidegger debate

The community of Davos, Switzerland, had started in the late s to run yearly University seminars lasting some three weeks each. Gordon is right in treating the Davos debate in this neidegger as a pivotal moment. The deeper tragedy is that it ended in politics at all.

Cassirer’s concentrated on a critique of philosophical anthropology and specifically of Max Scheler’s version of this new trend. Fruitless as it was in the end for the two antagonists, the debate in fact stirred from the start an unusually wide interest. Cassirer challenges Heidegger’s relativism by invoking the heisegger validity of truths discovered by the exact and moral sciences.


Continental Divide — Peter E. Gordon | Harvard University Press

Gordon begins his book with a broad characterization of Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s philosophical positions. 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.

What is human finitude? You are commenting using your Twitter account. Heidegger, Cassirer, Davosis due out this month.

Here is, perhaps, a place to disagree with Gordon’s assessment. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Fill in heideger details below or click an icon to log in: Leave a Reply Cancel reply Davks your comment here Gordon’s second chapter describes the cassrer of Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s debate. Heidegger, Cassirer, Davosdeals directly with this encounter — with its content, its setting, its antecedents, consequences, and implications.

Email required Address never made public. As Gordon explains, the Davos debate would continue to both inspire and provoke well after the two men had gone their separate ways. At the core of their debate at Davos and, it turns out, at the core of their entire philosophical thought lay, as Gordon puts it, “a fundamental contest between two normative images of humanity,” p.

For philosophical readers, Continental Divide as well as Gordon’s earlier book are likely to prove of interest primarily because of what they say about Heidegger, his thought, his life, and his times. What is human finitude? Gordon dissects the content of that debate in cssirer fourth and longest chapter in a rich and skillful analysis. Through a close and painstaking analysis, Gordon dissects the exchange itself to reveal that it was at core a philosophical disagreement over what it means to be human.

This site uses cookies. Cassirer questioned dacos Heidegger, with his belief in human finitude, could have any place for non-relative truth and objective knowledge.


To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Heidegger’s provocative thesis was also to form casdirer basis of the debate between him and Cassirer, which was the recognized high point of the entire seminar sessions at Davos. Notify me of new comments via email. Heidegger, in turn, criticized the neo-Kantian interpretation of Kant which, he said, had reduced the first Critique to a theory of knowledge for the natural sciences when it should in fact be read as laying the groundwork of a metaphysics — a somewhat contentious claim that Heidegger would elaborate in his book Kant and the Problem of Metaphysicspublished in late Their disagreement can be understood only if we appreciate their common point of departure as thinkers of the German davls crisis, an era of rebellion that touched all of the major philosophical movements of the cassider, philosophical anthropology, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and existentialism.


By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. The only thing I recall clearly about Carnap is that he said something to the effect of metaphysicians being like musicians without musical ability.

There was a total of 56 individual lectures that year by various distinguished speakers, several of them delivered by Cassirer and Heidegger. The opposition of freedom and finitude nevertheless serves Gordon well for framing his narrative of the Davos dwvos.

German philosophy, he argues, saw itself at this moment in a state of crisis that reflected the political and intellectual uncertainties of the period. These are certainly important categories for characterizing Cassirer’s and Heidegger’s work. 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.