Customer Reviews

What Is Called Thinking?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you read only one philosophy book in your entire life, this is the one to read. This book is not easy. It is not easy precisely because it is so simple and straightforward. It is not an exposition of thinking, or of what we call thinking, as much as it is an extended question about the problems associated with thinking. It has a healthy respect and acknowledges the complexity of the problems associated with thinking. These problems are problems not just of thinking, but of human existence itself. It starts with the tantalizing premise that "what is most thought provoking in this thought provoking time is that we are still not thinking." It goes on to examine the relationships between human beings and what is most alive, between man and that which is Present in what lies before us. Interestingly, deliverance from revenge, our hands, and our hearts all play a vital role in thinking. Still more intriguing is the role our language plays in thought, the existence and importance of what is unthought, and the ways technology and the modern age have made us subservient beings, and have forced to us "blink" superficial ideas, as opposed to doing real thinking. He discusses these themes and topics in an engaging lecture style format, with additional summaries and transitions at the end of each chapter. This is book that must be read, not only by those interested in philosophy, religion, and spirituality, but by all those who have ever wanted to deepen their understanding of thinking. It will prove to an enduring classic of philosophy, far beyond Plato's Republic. It is a timely book, coming at a time when so little thought is occuring. It is a book that should be owned, read, re-read and passed along to every literate person in the world. As Heidegger would say: "Let us see. Let us learn thinking."

This is an important work of philosophy, but it's probably a mistake to look in it for a statement about the nature of thought. Rather, Heidegger seeks to open up thinking, for himself and for the reader (originally the listeners of this lecture course). The questions he asks are as important, if not more so, as any potential answers. And as with almost all works of Heidegger after Being and Time, Heidegger's writing constitutes a kind of performance which fends off easy, facile conclusions. Objections to the idiosyncracies of his style fail to recognize that Heidegger's style is inseperable from the sort of open-ended thinking he promotes. Of all the many questions he asks, the most important is, "What calls for thinking?" We do not simply decide to think, according to Heidegger, but rather Being, the Being of beings, calls on us to think, and thereby realizes itself through our thinking. To read Heidegger is to step back from your everyday, taken-for-granted assumptions and thereby create a space for reflection. And this, as he says, is a gift.

I believe that this book is the best starting point for being introduced into Heidegger's thought, not "Being and Time". The reason being that this book "What is Called Thinking" was not created under academic pressure, nor is it trying to prove its associations with previous philosophers, and being last - is the most precise and clearest distillation of Heidgger's position - after a lifetime of tinkering with the basic ideas of Dasein.

This is some of Heideggers last lectures compiled into a two part book. The first part concerns itself with Nietzsche - the ideas of the "last man", the uberman (meta-man), the bridge, blinking, redemption/forgiveness, and eternal-return-of-the-same. The second part concerns itself with Parmenides' poetic clarification of usefullness and thinking as "Legein" (to lay out - the verb form of 'logos') together with "Noein" (to take to heart - the verb form of 'nouos') and their intimate interrelationship. Together they result in "Eon" - the original form of "to be".

This book was successfully used in by a "Heidegger Hermeneutic Circle" as the introductory text into Heidegger's opus.

Heidegger gets attacked from all sides these days - analytic philosophers, postmodernists (if misinterpreting constitutes an attack) - but the fact remains that, although he does make it worse for himself by using an idiosyncratic style, that certainly doesn't mean it's meaningless, it just means it's a lot more work than most philosophers (to read Heidegger). "Being and Time" and his late '20s/'30s work on Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche have established him as the most important philosopher of the 20th century, but this isn't his best work at all. I'd recommend beginning with Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", which explains a lot of Heidegger's main themes in terms intelligible to the traditional philosopher, and then Husserl's "Logical Investigations", and THEN "Being and Time". This work's far down the line of importance. You feel like he's already struggled with inexpressible ideas, explained them the best he could in the most controlled way he could, and can't get much further by the time he came to write this. For treatment of this more "non-logical" style of philosophy Kierkegaard or Nietzsche are just as good - Heidegger excels more in phenomenology than anywhere else.

The purchase was very simple, and they had the available book, the times and delivery of the product was made under the engaged conditions. I recommend this company for their quality and responsibility.

One of Heidegger's most readable works, especially book 1 (book 2 has lots of untranslated Greek words), I found the real message to be in his interpretation of the Rainbow -for Nietzsche representing the end of revenge sponsored thoughts and actions, and the bridge from man to the uberMensch. All in all a very uplifting and valuable read.

"What is called thinking" needs to be translated by connotation. Not only do I speak English but also fluently German. "Was heißt denken", by Martin Heidegger, translates best "What does it mean to think?" That translation gives it life, as Martin Heidegger obviously intended his question.
The way this book was translated is out of sink or understanding with Heidegger or any Greek philosopher like Aristotle, and especially not Nietzsche or Hölderlin. Actually it reads boring to the core.