What do you think?
Rate this book
Continental Divide by Peter E. Gordon
In the spring of 1929, Martin Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer met for a public conversation in Davos, Switzerland. They were arguably the most important thinkers in Europe, and their exchange touched upon the most urgent questions in the history of What is human finitude? What is objectivity? What is culture? What is truth?Over the last eighty years the Davos encounter has acquired an allegorical significance, as if it marked an ultimate and irreparable rupture in twentieth-century Continental thought. Here, in a reconstruction at once historical and philosophical, Peter Gordon reexamines the conversation, its origins and its aftermath, resuscitating an event that has become entombed in its own mythology. Through a close and painstaking analysis, Gordon dissects the exchange itself to reveal that it was at core a philosophical disagreement over what it means to be human.But Gordon also shows how the life and work of these two philosophers remained closely intertwined. Their disagreement can be understood only if we appreciate their common point of departure as thinkers of the German interwar crisis, an era of rebellion that touched all of the major philosophical movements of the day life-philosophy, philosophical anthropology, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and existentialism. As Gordon explains, the Davos debate would continue to both inspire and provoke well after the two men had gone their separate ways. It remains, even today, a touchstone of philosophical memory.This clear, riveting book will be of great interest not only to philosophers and to historians of philosophy but also to anyone interested in the great intellectual ferment of Europe s interwar years."
Paperback Bunko
First published June 1, 2010
5 people are currently reading
309 people want to read
About the author
Peter E. Gordon
34 books13 followersaka Peter Eli Gordon
Peter E. Gordon is the Amabel B. James Professor of History, Faculty Affilitate in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, and Faculty Affiliate in the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University. He works chiefly on themes in Continental philosophy and social thought in Germany and France in the late-modern era, with an emphasis on critical theory, Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, phenomenology, and existentialism. Primarily a scholar of modern European social theory, he has published major works on Heidegger, the Frankfurt School, Jürgen Habermas, and Theodor W. Adorno.
Peter E. Gordon is the Amabel B. James Professor of History, Faculty Affilitate in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, and Faculty Affiliate in the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University. He works chiefly on themes in Continental philosophy and social thought in Germany and France in the late-modern era, with an emphasis on critical theory, Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, phenomenology, and existentialism. Primarily a scholar of modern European social theory, he has published major works on Heidegger, the Frankfurt School, Jürgen Habermas, and Theodor W. Adorno.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 25, 2021
Heidegger And Cassirer At Davos
In March 1929, philosophers Martin Heidegger (1889 -- 1976) and Ernst Cassirer (1874 -- 1945) met in Davos, Switzerland for a public series of individual lectures and for a discussion and debate. The Davos meeting has assumed an important, near legendary, stature in the history of Continental philosophy. In his book "Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos" (2010) Peter Gordon gives an account of the the two philosophical protagonists, their Davos meeting, and of what proceeded and followed the Davos meeting. Most importantly, Gordon discusses what was and what was not at stake in the discussion between Cassirer and Heidegger. The book displays a rare combination of historical and philosophical insight. Gordon is Amabel B. James Professor of History and Harvard College Professor, Harvard University. Recently issued in paperback, his book won the Jacques Barzun Prize of the American Philosophical Society.
At the time of their Davos meeting, Cassirer and Heidegger were renowned. The older philosopher, Cassirer, was an urbane German-Jewish philosopher and a neo-Kantian who had written extensively on the history of philosophy, including a three-volume statement of his own philosophical approach, "The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms". Heidegger was born in rural Germany to a family of modest means and saw himself as an outsider. Before the Davos debate, Heidegger and published only one book, but it was extraordinary and made him famous. The book,"Being and Time" (1927) has become a classic of philosophical literature. In their Davos debate, Cassirer and Heidegger explored the issues that divided them and also tried to see the extent to which they shared common ground.
As did contemporaries to the debate, Gordon compares the discussion to the conversations between Naptha and Settembrini for the heart of Hans Castorp in Thomas Mann's novel, "The Magic Mountain". Mann's philosophical novel also was set in Davos. Gordon sees the debate as revolving broadly around a question posed by Kant: "what is man?". Gordon finds the debate between Cassirer and Heidegger turned on what he termed two competing "images of humanity" each of which derived in part from Kant. Cassirer's position derived from what Gordon terms "spontaneity" the ability of the human mind to shape reality and to create meaning in science, culture, ethics and other forms of endeavor. Heidegger's thought turned on what he termed "thrownness" or receptivity. It described man as a finite recipient of the world and of conditions which human beings do not control. Human being in the world is historical with no philosophical "grounding". Heidegger's thought began with religious questions although it abandoned religion. Cassirer's began with science and proceeded outward, particularly to ethics. Gordon's book explores and develops these complex, difficult themes in the Davos debate and in what proceeded and followed the debate.
The heart of the book is in the third and fourth chapters. In the former chapter, Gordon discusses the individual lectures that Cassirer and Heidegger presented at Davos. Somewhat paradoxically, Cassirer lectured on "philosophical anthropology", a subject with some ties to Heidegger, while Heidegger lectured on Kant, Cassirer's specialty, and offered a tortured reading of Kant's thought (which Heidegger himself ultimately abandoned). In the book's pivotal fourth chapter, Gordon gives the text of the debate between Cassirer and Heidegger together with Gordon's own extended commentary and analysis of virtually every passage.
Gordon's book shows great erudition about German philosophy in the years before WW II. He sets the stage for the discussion by giving the broad philosophical background that produced it. He discusses the thought of Cassirer and Heidegger in the years that led up to the debate, and their writings in the years which followed. He discusses the impact on the debate on other philosophers including Leo Strauss, Jurgen Habermas, and Emannuel Levinas.
The debate took place in 1929, on the cusp of Nazism. In 1933, Heidegger infamously declared his allegiance to Nazism and became the rector at Freiburg. Cassirer was forced to leave Germany and ultimately settled in the United States, Inevitably, the debate at Davos became politicized in philosophical memory. A major aim of Gordon's study is to depoliticize the debate and to try to understand the disagreements between Cassirer and Heidegger in philosophical terms. Gordon argues that philosophical disagreements have meaning in their own right and are not mere metaphors or fronts for politics. This is an important conclusion, philosophically and historically.
Gordon's primary aim is for an exposition of the philosophical positions at stake, coupled with analysis to help clarify the positions, including their broad divergencies and their limited commonalities. Gordon states that he began the study with a qualified partial admiration for Heidegger but became increasingly sympathetic towards Cassirer as the study proceeded. Gordon declines to decide which protagonist was more nearly correct in his position or who "won" the debate at Davos. The issues and positions of both philosophers continue to be discussed. In his conclusion, Gordon writes: "one is tempted to ask whether a true resolution of this conflict is at all likely or even possible. For in fact these two philosophical principles, throwness and spontaneity, mark the opposing facets of a conceptual divide, the very persistence of which might be understood as the historical predicament of philosophy itself. .... To force its resolution, or to foreclose prematurely upon its continued debate, would be to deny what may very well be an essential tension of the human condition."
Gordon has written a difficult, thoughtful work of philosophy in its own right. The book will be of most benefit to readers steeped in philosophy and with an interest in philosophical questions, particularly as derived from Kant.
Robin Friedman
In March 1929, philosophers Martin Heidegger (1889 -- 1976) and Ernst Cassirer (1874 -- 1945) met in Davos, Switzerland for a public series of individual lectures and for a discussion and debate. The Davos meeting has assumed an important, near legendary, stature in the history of Continental philosophy. In his book "Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos" (2010) Peter Gordon gives an account of the the two philosophical protagonists, their Davos meeting, and of what proceeded and followed the Davos meeting. Most importantly, Gordon discusses what was and what was not at stake in the discussion between Cassirer and Heidegger. The book displays a rare combination of historical and philosophical insight. Gordon is Amabel B. James Professor of History and Harvard College Professor, Harvard University. Recently issued in paperback, his book won the Jacques Barzun Prize of the American Philosophical Society.
At the time of their Davos meeting, Cassirer and Heidegger were renowned. The older philosopher, Cassirer, was an urbane German-Jewish philosopher and a neo-Kantian who had written extensively on the history of philosophy, including a three-volume statement of his own philosophical approach, "The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms". Heidegger was born in rural Germany to a family of modest means and saw himself as an outsider. Before the Davos debate, Heidegger and published only one book, but it was extraordinary and made him famous. The book,"Being and Time" (1927) has become a classic of philosophical literature. In their Davos debate, Cassirer and Heidegger explored the issues that divided them and also tried to see the extent to which they shared common ground.
As did contemporaries to the debate, Gordon compares the discussion to the conversations between Naptha and Settembrini for the heart of Hans Castorp in Thomas Mann's novel, "The Magic Mountain". Mann's philosophical novel also was set in Davos. Gordon sees the debate as revolving broadly around a question posed by Kant: "what is man?". Gordon finds the debate between Cassirer and Heidegger turned on what he termed two competing "images of humanity" each of which derived in part from Kant. Cassirer's position derived from what Gordon terms "spontaneity" the ability of the human mind to shape reality and to create meaning in science, culture, ethics and other forms of endeavor. Heidegger's thought turned on what he termed "thrownness" or receptivity. It described man as a finite recipient of the world and of conditions which human beings do not control. Human being in the world is historical with no philosophical "grounding". Heidegger's thought began with religious questions although it abandoned religion. Cassirer's began with science and proceeded outward, particularly to ethics. Gordon's book explores and develops these complex, difficult themes in the Davos debate and in what proceeded and followed the debate.
The heart of the book is in the third and fourth chapters. In the former chapter, Gordon discusses the individual lectures that Cassirer and Heidegger presented at Davos. Somewhat paradoxically, Cassirer lectured on "philosophical anthropology", a subject with some ties to Heidegger, while Heidegger lectured on Kant, Cassirer's specialty, and offered a tortured reading of Kant's thought (which Heidegger himself ultimately abandoned). In the book's pivotal fourth chapter, Gordon gives the text of the debate between Cassirer and Heidegger together with Gordon's own extended commentary and analysis of virtually every passage.
Gordon's book shows great erudition about German philosophy in the years before WW II. He sets the stage for the discussion by giving the broad philosophical background that produced it. He discusses the thought of Cassirer and Heidegger in the years that led up to the debate, and their writings in the years which followed. He discusses the impact on the debate on other philosophers including Leo Strauss, Jurgen Habermas, and Emannuel Levinas.
The debate took place in 1929, on the cusp of Nazism. In 1933, Heidegger infamously declared his allegiance to Nazism and became the rector at Freiburg. Cassirer was forced to leave Germany and ultimately settled in the United States, Inevitably, the debate at Davos became politicized in philosophical memory. A major aim of Gordon's study is to depoliticize the debate and to try to understand the disagreements between Cassirer and Heidegger in philosophical terms. Gordon argues that philosophical disagreements have meaning in their own right and are not mere metaphors or fronts for politics. This is an important conclusion, philosophically and historically.
Gordon's primary aim is for an exposition of the philosophical positions at stake, coupled with analysis to help clarify the positions, including their broad divergencies and their limited commonalities. Gordon states that he began the study with a qualified partial admiration for Heidegger but became increasingly sympathetic towards Cassirer as the study proceeded. Gordon declines to decide which protagonist was more nearly correct in his position or who "won" the debate at Davos. The issues and positions of both philosophers continue to be discussed. In his conclusion, Gordon writes: "one is tempted to ask whether a true resolution of this conflict is at all likely or even possible. For in fact these two philosophical principles, throwness and spontaneity, mark the opposing facets of a conceptual divide, the very persistence of which might be understood as the historical predicament of philosophy itself. .... To force its resolution, or to foreclose prematurely upon its continued debate, would be to deny what may very well be an essential tension of the human condition."
Gordon has written a difficult, thoughtful work of philosophy in its own right. The book will be of most benefit to readers steeped in philosophy and with an interest in philosophical questions, particularly as derived from Kant.
Robin Friedman
April 14, 2011
A fine, illuminating reflection on the 1929 Davos debate between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger – and with that summary, it's obvious that the audience for this book will be quite small, even among readers interested in philosophy. A couple years ago I tried to read Michael Friedman's A Parting of the Ways on this same subject and gave up. Gordon's history, while not an easy read, is more approachable. You don't have to understand the transcendental intricacies of Kant's Critiques or Heidegger's imponderable neologisms to grasp "what was at core a disagreement between two normative images of humanity."
Davos was the setting for Mann's Magic Mountain, and it's tempting to read the confrontation between Cassirer and Heidegger as a re-enactment of the debate between the humanist Settembrini and the nihilist Naphta. Or (if you're Hans Blumenberg) between Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther. Or between Enlightenment and Fascism; or modernity and recrudescent mythology. These manifold echoes existed in the minds of its original auditors and became even more pronounced after 1933 when Cassirer, an eminent German Jew, was forced into exile and Heidegger threw his support to the new Nazi regime.
Tempting – and a mistake according to Gordon. Any "allegorical" interpretation dissolves the philosophical into the political: "it threatens to divest us of any remaining criteria by which to decide intellectual debate other than the anti-intellectual contingencies of sheer power... the ultimate tragedy of the Davos encounter is not that it ended in victory for politics of the wrong kind. The deeper tragedy is that it ended in politics at all."
That, I think, is actually profound – but probably you have to find epistemology (or is it gnoseology?) profound to think so. My own sympathies are divided between the two ways of thinking. Heidegger's existentialism draws deeply on Kierkegaard, one of my favorite authors, although tellingly he has none of Kierkegaard's Mozartian humor. Cassirer was right to see in Heidegger's philosophy the persistence of a fundamentally religious anxiety. By contrast, Cassirer's philosophy sustains the impulse of the Enlightenment in its best, most reflective aspect – and I have Gordon to thank for spurring me to return to Cassirer's magnum opus, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms.
As I said, all this is likely to interest very few, but for those interested in Continental philosophy, this is an excellent contribution to its history.
Davos was the setting for Mann's Magic Mountain, and it's tempting to read the confrontation between Cassirer and Heidegger as a re-enactment of the debate between the humanist Settembrini and the nihilist Naphta. Or (if you're Hans Blumenberg) between Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther. Or between Enlightenment and Fascism; or modernity and recrudescent mythology. These manifold echoes existed in the minds of its original auditors and became even more pronounced after 1933 when Cassirer, an eminent German Jew, was forced into exile and Heidegger threw his support to the new Nazi regime.
Tempting – and a mistake according to Gordon. Any "allegorical" interpretation dissolves the philosophical into the political: "it threatens to divest us of any remaining criteria by which to decide intellectual debate other than the anti-intellectual contingencies of sheer power... the ultimate tragedy of the Davos encounter is not that it ended in victory for politics of the wrong kind. The deeper tragedy is that it ended in politics at all."
That, I think, is actually profound – but probably you have to find epistemology (or is it gnoseology?) profound to think so. My own sympathies are divided between the two ways of thinking. Heidegger's existentialism draws deeply on Kierkegaard, one of my favorite authors, although tellingly he has none of Kierkegaard's Mozartian humor. Cassirer was right to see in Heidegger's philosophy the persistence of a fundamentally religious anxiety. By contrast, Cassirer's philosophy sustains the impulse of the Enlightenment in its best, most reflective aspect – and I have Gordon to thank for spurring me to return to Cassirer's magnum opus, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms.
As I said, all this is likely to interest very few, but for those interested in Continental philosophy, this is an excellent contribution to its history.
December 29, 2010
An erudite study of the famous Davos debate between philosophers Erst Cassierer and Martin Heidegger in 1929. Gordon aims to strip away the mythology and symbolism that have shaped historical memory of the encounter to get at the fundamental disagreements between Cassierer's neo-Kantianism and Heidegger's philosophy of Dasein. Gordon locates their disagreement in Cassierer's belief in man's ability to transcend his finitude through spontaneous creativity as opposed to Heidegger's existentialist belief in man's unalterable finitude. Gordon is effective at mapping out the arguments put forth by the two philosophers and explaining their larger cultural significance for later philosophers including Emmanuel Levinas and Leo Strauss. Gordon also effectively argues that the notion that Cassierer lost the debate to the emerging genius Heidegger has been shaped by the decline in neo-Kantianism after the Nazi takeover and the adoration heaped on Heidegger by prominent disciples like Hannah Arendt and Herbert Marcuse. By examining transcripts of the debate and testimony by those in attendance, Gordon illustrates that most felt the argument was a draw or that the two philosophers were speaking past one another.
Unfortunately, Gordon undermines his arguments by articulating them within the baffling chronological structure of "Continental Divide". Gordon moves between historical periods frequently and as a result he is forced to reiterate previous positions numerous times leading to a feeling of repetitiveness. Furthermore, "Continental Divide" feels like an essay expanded into a book. The actual debate between Cassierer and Heidegger occupies a scant seventy of the three-hundred and seventy page volume. Despite Gordon's best intentions, the debate itself gets swallowed within its context forcing him to reengage with the same mythology and symbolism he had hoped to avoid explicating. Finally, Gordon's book falls victim to the "so what?" question of history. He is so eager to downplay the significance of the debate in the history of 20th century philosophy it becomes unclear why he devoted so much time and effort to writing a lengthy volume about it. Perhaps the best way to downplay the significance of the Davos debate is to allow it to be forgotten in the churning froth of historical memory instead of bringing it back into historical consciousness.
I had very high hopes for "Continental Divide". I admire Professor Gordon's work editing the "New German Critique" and I agree with his program of askesis. However, I cannot recommend this book to anyone, but those with an intense interest in the history of 20th century philosophy and/or the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. It's a shame that such brilliant scholarship as is found in the footnotes of "Continental Divide" is obscured by poor formatting and I look forward to further efforts of Professor Gordon to bring his historical vision into being without the obstruction of poor organization.
Unfortunately, Gordon undermines his arguments by articulating them within the baffling chronological structure of "Continental Divide". Gordon moves between historical periods frequently and as a result he is forced to reiterate previous positions numerous times leading to a feeling of repetitiveness. Furthermore, "Continental Divide" feels like an essay expanded into a book. The actual debate between Cassierer and Heidegger occupies a scant seventy of the three-hundred and seventy page volume. Despite Gordon's best intentions, the debate itself gets swallowed within its context forcing him to reengage with the same mythology and symbolism he had hoped to avoid explicating. Finally, Gordon's book falls victim to the "so what?" question of history. He is so eager to downplay the significance of the debate in the history of 20th century philosophy it becomes unclear why he devoted so much time and effort to writing a lengthy volume about it. Perhaps the best way to downplay the significance of the Davos debate is to allow it to be forgotten in the churning froth of historical memory instead of bringing it back into historical consciousness.
I had very high hopes for "Continental Divide". I admire Professor Gordon's work editing the "New German Critique" and I agree with his program of askesis. However, I cannot recommend this book to anyone, but those with an intense interest in the history of 20th century philosophy and/or the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. It's a shame that such brilliant scholarship as is found in the footnotes of "Continental Divide" is obscured by poor formatting and I look forward to further efforts of Professor Gordon to bring his historical vision into being without the obstruction of poor organization.
March 10, 2020
I really enjoyed this, Cassirer's side of the debate is so clear in its goal and presumptions that the incomprehensible drivel of the Magus of Messkirch becomes better exposed. Yes drivel, all that elevation of finitude in a manner that just about diverts any constructive thinking or pragmatic ready-to-hand analysis of space time which would perhaps explain the life-world of an aphasic, drivel which is neither anthropology nor cultural criticism, but a form of proto-New Age complaint about science. You really don't have to be Neo-Kantian to see which side had merit, and so many did not.
March 23, 2012
Would that all subsequent Davos conferences had been so edifying.
Read
August 31, 2024The symbolic form is the both the nucleus of spirit above mere being (Cassirer) and the nucleus of repression/forgetting of pure being (Heidegger).
October 9, 2021
A rich and balanced account that, I believe, does justice to the profundity of the difference between two of the greatest German philosophers of the time, a distinction that became freighted with political significance with the Nazification of Germany a few years later.
Much has been made of the symbolic significance this debate has had on the direction of Continental philosophy, a debate that in important and somewhat ironical ways presupposed the emergence of French anti-foundationalism in the ‘60s. (This last is my own impression, Gordon merely recognizes in passing at various points the persistence of Heidegger’s influence upon such thought despite its problematical nature for those concerned.) In this regard the trenchancy of the philosophical divide between Cassirer’s humanist project and the ethical imperatives he finds imbued within it and Heidegger’s critique of a centuries-long forgetfulness of the question-worthiness of the nature of Being, of which he views Cassirer's philosophy to be a symptom, speaks to a genuine pathos concerning the various attempts to surmount the conditionality of our inherent finitude. Kant is the lynchpin here, and the competing interpretations of his philosophy with respect to Cassirer's and Heidegger's divergent interpretations of the crucial role of the productive imagination in the Kantian project, and particularly with respect to the Kantian question: What (or Who) is Man? is a battleground that proves to be perennial and intractable.
Perhaps Gordon’s greatest achievement is his careful examination of the ways in which memory impinges upon the nature of understanding in times of crisis and profound suffering. This leitmotif, performed with such fidelity and skill regarding the issues and conflicts presented--personal, philosophical, and cultural--is and must remain a lesson for all of us.
Much has been made of the symbolic significance this debate has had on the direction of Continental philosophy, a debate that in important and somewhat ironical ways presupposed the emergence of French anti-foundationalism in the ‘60s. (This last is my own impression, Gordon merely recognizes in passing at various points the persistence of Heidegger’s influence upon such thought despite its problematical nature for those concerned.) In this regard the trenchancy of the philosophical divide between Cassirer’s humanist project and the ethical imperatives he finds imbued within it and Heidegger’s critique of a centuries-long forgetfulness of the question-worthiness of the nature of Being, of which he views Cassirer's philosophy to be a symptom, speaks to a genuine pathos concerning the various attempts to surmount the conditionality of our inherent finitude. Kant is the lynchpin here, and the competing interpretations of his philosophy with respect to Cassirer's and Heidegger's divergent interpretations of the crucial role of the productive imagination in the Kantian project, and particularly with respect to the Kantian question: What (or Who) is Man? is a battleground that proves to be perennial and intractable.
Perhaps Gordon’s greatest achievement is his careful examination of the ways in which memory impinges upon the nature of understanding in times of crisis and profound suffering. This leitmotif, performed with such fidelity and skill regarding the issues and conflicts presented--personal, philosophical, and cultural--is and must remain a lesson for all of us.
October 21, 2012
This book provides a little more insight into the ideas of Heidegger, Cassirer and Kant. It tells about a dialog between the first two of these thinkers. Ideas such as thrownness are made a little more clear. The interplay between philosophical and political issues is clarified. There's enough information about the Heidegger and Cassirer and their relationship to keep it interesting.
May 1, 2017
Focusing on the debate between Heidegger and Cassirer, Gordon manages to provide a very insightful look at twentieth century 'Continental' philosophy. For me existentialism always seemed like a theory that arose out of the anguish of World War II. Gordon's look at Heidegger in the 1920s let me see how his ideas had their roots in Kant. In the process he helped me get a better understanding of Kant as well. He does not duck the issue of Heidegger's Nazism. The book gave me a better understanding of that [without apologies] and still made a case for not conflating politics and philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews