In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Kim — University of Nebraska Press / Page 165 / / Heideggerian Marxism / Herbert Marcuse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [First Page] [165], (1) Lines: 0 to 52 ——— 14.48601pt PgVar ——— Normal Page * PgEnds: Eject [165], (1) 7 Heidegger’s Politics An Interview Frederick Olafson: Professor Marcuse, you are very widely known as a social philosopher and a Marxist; but I think there are relatively few who know that Martin Heidegger and his philosophy played a considerable role in your intellectual career. Perhaps we could begin by just laying out the basic facts about that contact with Heidegger and with his philosophy. Herbert Marcuse: Here are the basic facts—I read Sein und Zeit when it came out in 1927 and after having read it I decided to go back to Freiburg (where I had received my PhD in 1922) in order to work with Heidegger. I stayed in Freiburg and worked with Heidegger until December 1932, when I left Germany a few days before Hitler’s ascent to power, and that ended the personal relationship. I saw Heidegger again after the war, I think in 1946–47, in the Black Forest where he has his little house. We had a talk, which was not exactly very friendly and very positive, there was an exchange of letters, and since that time there has not been any communication between us. Olafson: Would it be fair to say that during the time you were in Freiburg you accepted the principle theses of Being and Time and that you were, in some sense, at that time, a Heideggerian? Or were there major qualifications and reservations even then? Marcuse: I must say frankly that during this time, let’s say from 1928 to 1932, there were relatively few reservations and relatively few criticisms on my part. I would rather say on our part, because Heidegger at that time was not a personal problem, not even philosophically, but a problem of a large part of the generation that studied in Germany after the first World War. We saw in Heidegger what we had first seen in Husserl, a new beginning, the first Kim — University of Nebraska Press / Page 166 / / Heideggerian Marxism / Herbert Marcuse 166 Heidegger’s Politics: An Interview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [166], (2) Lines: 52 to 87 ——— 8.5pt PgVar ——— Normal Page * PgEnds: Eject [166], (2) radical attempt to put philosophy on really concrete foundations—philosophy concerned with human existence, the human condition, and not with merely abstract ideas and principles. That certainly I shared with a relatively large number of my generation, and needless to say, the disappointment with this philosophy eventually came—I think it began in the early thirties. But we re-examined Heidegger thoroughly only after his association with Nazism had become known. Olafson: What did you make at that stage of the social aspect of Heidegger’s philosophy—its implications for political and social life and action? Were you yourself interested in those at that stage, did you perceive them in Heidegger’s thought? Marcuse: I was very much interested in it during that stage, at the same time I wrote articles of Marxist analysis for the theoretical organ of the German Socialists, Die Gesellschaft. So I certainly was interested, and I first, like all the others, believed there could be some combination between existentialism and Marxism, precisely because of their insistence on concrete analysis of actual human existence, human beings, and their world. But I soon realized that Heidegger’s concreteness was to a great extent a phony, a false concreteness, and that in fact his philosophy was just as abstract and just as removed from reality, even avoiding reality, as the philosophies which at that time had dominated German universities, namely a rather dry brand of neo-Kantianism, neo-Hegelianism, neo-Idealism, but also positivism. Olafson:Howdidherespondtothehopesthatyouhadforsomekindoffruitful integration of his philosophy with, let us say, a Marxist social philosophy? Marcuse: He didn’t respond. You know as far as I can say, it is today still open to question whether Heidegger ever really read Marx, whether Heidegger ever read Lukács, as Lucien Goldmann...

Share