Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Steven Aschheim

Print publication date: 2001

Print ISBN-13: 9780520220560

Published to California Scholarship Online: May 2012

DOI: 10.1525/california/9780520220560.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.california.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of California Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CALSO for personal use (for details see http://california.universitypressscholarship.com/page/535/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice).date: 22 July 2018

Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger

Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger

History and Metahistory

Chapter:
(p.338) Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger
Source:
Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem
Author(s):

Annette Vowinckel

Publisher:
University of California Press
DOI:10.1525/california/9780520220560.003.0022

It is a striking fact that while the idea of history is a central element in the thinking of both Heidegger and Arendt, this element is to a large extent present as the object of remarkable antagonism between them. Despite this antagonism, it is precisely the raw contingencies of history that have given the relationship between these two figures — intellectual and emotional — its particular urgency and poignancy. This chapter discusses Arendt's and Heidegger's conceptions of history. Heidegger chose to break what he perceived as causal thinking's universal “monopoly on rule” by proposing a quasiteleological Seinsgeschick — a “fate of being” — that happened to serve as his justification of an embrace of Nazi politics. In contrast, Arendt made her skepticism toward the specific causal thinking at work in one kind of history and her belief that a new beginning is possible even under the grimmest circumstances the basis for a specific theory of action in the here and now. In doing so, she explicitly opposed Heidegger's general disinterest in particular events, as well as his contention that the past is only one aspect of temporality, hence of secondary importance. She likewise refused to share his universal criticism of scientific research, his contempt for all the empirical sciences as “machinations.” Where Heidegger is always very much concerned with death and mortality, Arendt is increasingly concerned with birth and natality.

Keywords:   Hannah Arendt, Martin Heidegger, history, science, death, mortality, birth, natality

California Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.