An Ontological Study of Death: From Hegel to Heidegger

Notes

Notes NOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1. In my ensuing discussion of death as a biological and cultural phenomenon I have profited from a number of secondary studies in addition to the original works mentioned. These former include: Choron, Death and Western Thought; Dollimore, Death, Desire, and Loss; Karl Löwith, “Die Freiheit zum Tode”; and Schulz, “Zum Problem des Todes.” 2. Plato, Phaedo, Complete Works, 55 (sec. 64a). 3. Demske, Being, Man, and Death, 1. 4. Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, 137. 5. Demske, Being, Man, and Death, 2. 6. Hume, “Of Suicide,” 595. 7. Ibid., 586, 587. 8. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 43, 237. 9. Marcuse, “The Ideology of Death,” 67. 10. Ibid., 70. 11. Ibid., 69–71. 12. Baudrillard, Symbolic Exchange and Death, 126. 13. Ibid., 147. 14. Ibid., 147. 15. Elias, The Loneliness of the Dying, 60. 16. See ibid., 12–16. 17. Lerner, “When, Why, and Where People Die,” 21, 24. 18. Benoliel and Degner, “Institutional Dying,” 123. 19. I am aware that in giving these particular perspectives their due, I am necessarily excluding others. Two important models that I will not consider here are Freud’s theory of the death drive and the Marxist ideal of dying for the collective. With respect to the former, I fail to see any revealing connection to the dialectical and existential views that extend from Hegel to Heidegger. In this sense I concur with Baudrillard, who similarly regards Freud as an anomaly in Western thanatological thinking. (See Baudrillard, Symbolic Exchange and Death, 148–54.) The Marxist tradition in twentieth century Germany, on the other hand, is more directly involved with figures like 289 Heidegger, whose views on death have been soundly criticized by Adorno, Marcuse, Bertolt Brecht, and others. I have to some extent already explored this debate between Marxism and existentialism by focusing on Brecht’s effort to assert the social(ist) over the individualized function of death. See Ireton, “Brechts ‘Zertrümmerung’ von Heidegger.” Further examination of this issue in the present context would, however, only lead too far astray. 20. Two representative voices, one German and oneAnglo-American, in this regard are: Henrich, “Hegel und Hölderlin”; and Solomon, In the Spirit of Hegel, 136–40. 21. Solomon, In the Spirit of Hegel, 59. NOTES TO CHAPTER 1, “HEGEL” 1. Hoffmeister, Briefe von und an Hegel, 1:18. 2. Although there is a complete lack of biographical testimony as to the precise nature of this intellectual exchange, one can get some idea of its intensity from a scene described by Hölderlin’s stepbrother, Karl Gok, during a visit to Frankfurt in the spring of 1797. Hölderlin immediately introduced Gok to Hegel, who received him warmly. But the newcomer’s presence was soon forgotten amidst a passionate philosophical dispute between the two ex-seminarians. See Hölderlin, Sämtliche Werke 7, 82. 3. Hoffmeister, Briefe von und an Hegel, 1:42. See also Hölderlin, SWB 3, 243. 4. This is also the thesis of Christoph Jamme, who more specifically maintains that Hölderlin’s words to Hegel function as a maxim for their common philosophical campaign against rationalistic, Enlightment thinking. Jamme’s study, an in-depth account of the interaction between the two reunited colleagues, even draws its title from Hölderlin’s programmatic phrase. See Jamme, “Ein ungelehrtes Buch,” 139. 5. Due to his unhappiness with the demands of his job (the official reason given in letters) but probably more because of an escalating affair with his employer’s wife, Susette Gontard, Hölderlin left Frankfurt in September of 1798, taking up residence in nearby Homburg von der Höhe. This move did not, however, greatly affect his contact with Hegel. Hölderlin traveled to Frankfurt once a month in order to exchange love letters with Susette, while Hegel, for his part, often visited his friend in Homburg. 6. See for example Lukács, The Young Hegel, 64; and Kaufmann, “The Young Hegel and Religion,” 62–63. 7. I am dispensing with a discussion of Hegel’s “Life of Jesus” essay, which is not included in his Werke since it contains many of the same ideas as his other early religious fragments. The interested reader can find this text in Three Essays, 104–65. 8. Jamme, “Ein ungelehrtes Buch,” 140. 9. The text is often included in editions of Hölderlin’s and Schelling’s works. For an overview of its reception and an analysis of its content, see Jamme...