Ortega y el segundo Heidegger
Ortega y Gasset did not know the writings of the second Heidegger as well as those of the first, but it is certain that he read them too, though there are few that he cites explicitly in his own works. In any case, the major confrontation between them occurred in public lectures and debates organize...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Ed. Pontificia Univ. Gregoriana
1975
|
| In: |
Gregorianum
Year: 1975, Volume: 56, Issue: 4, Pages: 733-763 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Ortega y Gasset did not know the writings of the second Heidegger as well as those of the first, but it is certain that he read them too, though there are few that he cites explicitly in his own works. In any case, the major confrontation between them occurred in public lectures and debates organized in Germany in 1951. On that occasion the architects of Germany held a convention at Darmstadt and agreed to invite two important philosophers, to wit Ortega and Heidegger. Both gave a talk the same day and on practically the same theme. But their conclusions seemed opposed. Heidegger asserted that the original situation of man in the world was that of inhabiting. According to Ortega, on the contrary, the world is of itself uninhabitable for man, who finds himself obliged to construct another world, distinct from the natural one, by means of his technical capacity. To clarify their respective points of view, the two philosophers conducted a public debate at Bühlerhöhe. Ortega based his thesis on arguments drawn from natural science, whereas Heidegger based himself on the etymologies of the words used by ancient authors to designate the concept of being. According to Heidegger, bin is related to buan (from which come bauen and wohnen). This would indicate that the word with which the ancient Saxons expressed the concept of being was the same as that with which they expressed the concept of inhabiting. So in those ancient times being and inhabiting would be understood as equivalent concepts. After noting that he attached little importance to the etymological argument in this case, Ortega allowed himself to make a correction of Heidegger which, if admitted, would show that far from supporting Heidegger's thesis the etymologies confirmed his own. Heidegger, he said, considered only two words (bin and buan); but when there is question of determining the sense hidden in etymological roots it is necessary to consider not just one or two words, but the whole galaxy of etymologically related words. If, in addition to bin and buan, Heidegger had also considered the words Wunsch, gewinnen, Wahn, etc., derived from the same root, he would have found that to be is not simply to inhabit, but also to desire something one does not possess, to aspire to it, to achieve it with effort. Hence it would seem to follow that man does not simply inhabit the world, but desires and strives for it. The debate, it may be noted, proceeded in an atmosphere of perfect correctness and cordiality. From 1951 Ortega and Heidegger treated one another as friends. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Gregorianum
|