Why Wrestle with Being and Time? A Justification of Heideggerâ•Žs Methodology of Obscurantism and Obfuscation

It seems that complaints about Heidegger’s style of writing are common fare in secondary literature and the classroom. This paper argues that both Heidegger’s obtuseness and obscurantism work as methodological devices for effectively communicating and demonstrating his thought. By obfuscating, he forces breakdowns, which pulls the reader out of her ready-to-hand mode of reading/revealing, which otherwise threatens to fall into comprehending via reference from one’s average everydayness. By being obscure in some passages where taking the meaning in multiple ways will not interfere with the main points being made, Heidegger enables his students to form personal (existentiell) interpretations, allowing for the possibility of authenticity. Therefore, one of the most hated aspects of B&T is actually the demonstrative reification of its key concepts. Whether purposeful or not on the part of Heidegger, this methodology proves essential for understanding his thought. Introduction: Why wrestle with Being and Time? Many classes, lectures, or books on Heidegger’s work will, in their introductory remarks, apologize for his writing style. These apologies typically take the form of a disclaimer. This paper proposes an apology as well, but in the rarer and more literal sense of the word: a defense. Although Heidegger is notorious for his infuriating writing style, he remains one of the most influential thinkers of the 20 century. Many students turn to Being and Time 1 Oxford English Dictionary: “The pleading off from a charge or imputation, whether expressed, implied, or only conceived as possible; defence of a person, or vindication of an institution, etc., from accusation or aspersion.” Res Cogitans (2016) 7 Mckerracher | 159 2155-4838 | commons.pacificu.edu/rescogitans (B&T) at some point in their studies to only return perplexed, if not angry. While frustration is no doubt merited, the challenge of undertaking such a project is guaranteed to be worthwhile for many reasons, a few of which will be discussed in this introduction. Known for opening new dimensions of thought in its own right, B&T also works as a gateway to some of the most important thinkers of the 20 Century. However, recent controversies over Heidegger’s Nazi affiliations raise healthy concerns that may deter some students from seriously grappling with B&T. It is therefore important to point to the fact that Heidegger’s own moral deficiencies catalyzed those ethical thinkers to follow, who themselves, as Heidegger’s most penetrating and insightful critics, cannot be understood without first knowing to what it is they are responding to. As Levinas said, “Even if one frees oneself from the systematic rigors of [Heidegger’s] thought, one remains marked by the very style of [B&T’s] analyses, by the ‘cardinal points’ [i.e. finitude, being-there, being-toward-death, etc.] to which the ‘existential analytic’ refers.” If one has an interest in thinkers such as Levinas, Arendt, Jonas, Marcuse, Derrida, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, or Foucault, just to name a few, it must be realized that Heidegger acts as the gatekeeper to their thought. As Iain Thomson has so convincingly argued concerning Levinas, to bypass B&T results in a fundamental impairment to reading those it influenced. Why does Heidegger stand as the gatekeeper to these thinkers? What is it about his thought that made so many of his students’ contributions to their various fields so influential? I will be arguing that the process of studying Heidegger itself acts as a mental reconfiguration that provides access to entirely revolutionary orientations of one’s own way of being-in-the-world; in other words, instead of cluttering one’s thoughts with additional knowledge to be heaped upon or against pre-existing assumptions, the study of B&T clears a region for authentic thinking in a less obstructed light. Even when, with someone like Foucault, the influence is less obvious, one can reasonably doubt that his work would have provided such a novel perspective if not for Heidegger’s clearing. Indeed, near the end of his life Foucault gave credit to Heidegger as always being his “essential philosopher.” 2 Although much of what will be argued in this paper can and probably does apply to his later work, this paper focuses on B&T as the essential Heidegger text. 3 Levinas, Emmanuel. Ethics and Infinity, Richard A. Cohen. (Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 1985), 41. 4 Thomson, Iain. "Rethinking Levinas on Heidegger on Death," The Harvard Review of Philosophy, Vol. XVI (Fall 2009), pp. 23-43. 5 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time, trans. Macquarrie and Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 167. 6 Elden, Stuart. Mapping the Present: Heidegger, Foucault and the Project of a Spatial History. (Bloomsbury Academic: 2002) 1. Res Cogitans (2016) 7 Mckerracher | 16