What do you think?
Rate this book
Forerunners: Ideas First
Martin Heidegger Saved My Life
In Martin Heidegger Saved My Life, Grant Farred combines autobiography with philosophical rumination to offer this unusual meditation on American racism. In the fall of 2013 while raking leaves outside his home, Farred experienced a racist a white woman stopped to ask him, “Would you like another job?” Farred responded, “Only if you can match my Cornell faculty salary.” The moment, however, stuck with him. The black man had gravitated to, of all people, Martin Heidegger, specifically Heidegger’s pronouncement, “Only when man speaks, does he think—and not the other way around,” in order to unpack this encounter.
In this essay, Farred grapples with why it is that Heidegger—well known as a Nazi—resonates so deeply with him during this encounter instead of other, more predictable figures such as Malcolm X, W. E. B. DuBois, or Frantz Fanon.
Forerunners is a thought-in-process series of breakthrough digital works. Written between fresh ideas and finished books, Forerunners draws on scholarly work initiated in notable blogs, social media, conference plenaries, journal articles, and the synergy of academic exchange. This is gray literature where intense thinking, change, and speculation take place in scholarship.
In this essay, Farred grapples with why it is that Heidegger—well known as a Nazi—resonates so deeply with him during this encounter instead of other, more predictable figures such as Malcolm X, W. E. B. DuBois, or Frantz Fanon.
Forerunners is a thought-in-process series of breakthrough digital works. Written between fresh ideas and finished books, Forerunners draws on scholarly work initiated in notable blogs, social media, conference plenaries, journal articles, and the synergy of academic exchange. This is gray literature where intense thinking, change, and speculation take place in scholarship.
- GenresPhilosophy
84 pages, Paperback
First published September 4, 2015
8 people are currently reading
159 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 28, 2022
Unthought Racism
Preparing for a situation or encounter before we are forced to confront it is the role of thought if I read Grant Farred correctly. As he says, “There is a crucial difference between the response produced by thinking and the response devoid of it…” But, as Martin Heidegger pointed out, “We do not know what thinking is.” And yet Farred insists “Martin Heidegger saved me because it is he who makes me, made me, think about what to say before I was called upon to say it.” To think about thinking is indeed a tricky business.
The point of Farred’s essay is to provide a thoughtful explanation of his confrontation with a middle class resident of his prosperous neighbourhood. Seeing Farred raking leaves in his garden, she asks this distinguished professor at a renowned university whether he would like additional work, presumably to do the same in her garden. Central to Farred’s account of this encounter is Heidegger’s concept of the Unthought and its very practical relevance to the issue of race.
What we casually call rational thought is actually a very irrational response grounded in a set of unrecognised and therefore unconsidered presumptions about the world and how it works. Uncovering these presumptions (one can hardly call them interests since they may simply be symptoms of neurosis or ignorance) before an encounter in which they are employed is the function of philosophy as I read Farred. Accordingly, “The only proper political response to the question that is presented without thinking, the question that is rooted in an objectionable politics, is to ‘speak’ thinking. It is to think before, long before, you are called upon to speak.”
The routine racism of the woman’s question to Farred (he a Black man doing manual labour in a well-to-do part of town) is generated by an immense cultural Unthought. Such a condition cannot be penetrated by rationality because it is its own rationality. It is probably not even accessible through psychological therapy since it isn’t bothersome to its ‘bearer.’ An angry or hostile response is only likely to reinforce racial presumptions.
Farred has in fact anticipated the woman’s Unthought. Prepared by his experience in apartheid South Africa as well as the bourgeoise United States, he has thought not only her Unthought but his own long in advance of his encounter with her. Farred recognises the collective characteristic of thought which often pretends to independence: “In thinking we stand, by ourselves, gathered into the thought of others, gathered by the thought of others, gathering others into our thinking. All the while our thoughts seek to gather others unto us.” Thus he is able to make a response which punctures her thinking (and his own), a provocation directed precisely at her Unthought without ever mentioning it. Farred simply replies, “Certainly, as long as you can match my university salary.”
I can’t claim to comprehend the nuances and subtleties of Heideggerian philosophy. Nor have I experienced the pervasive subtlety of racism. But I think I understand Farred’s point. Argument, in any of its forms, is inadequate to change minds. Thoughtful discourse of the kind he reports may indeed be an alternative. Preparing that “statement for the moment” by thinking about thinking could be just the tactic to pursue in combatting racism as well as the many other human ills.
Postscript: As I was reading Farred, this showed up in my newsfeed: https://apple.news/AyIeNoI53TJqOhOwPq...
Preparing for a situation or encounter before we are forced to confront it is the role of thought if I read Grant Farred correctly. As he says, “There is a crucial difference between the response produced by thinking and the response devoid of it…” But, as Martin Heidegger pointed out, “We do not know what thinking is.” And yet Farred insists “Martin Heidegger saved me because it is he who makes me, made me, think about what to say before I was called upon to say it.” To think about thinking is indeed a tricky business.
The point of Farred’s essay is to provide a thoughtful explanation of his confrontation with a middle class resident of his prosperous neighbourhood. Seeing Farred raking leaves in his garden, she asks this distinguished professor at a renowned university whether he would like additional work, presumably to do the same in her garden. Central to Farred’s account of this encounter is Heidegger’s concept of the Unthought and its very practical relevance to the issue of race.
What we casually call rational thought is actually a very irrational response grounded in a set of unrecognised and therefore unconsidered presumptions about the world and how it works. Uncovering these presumptions (one can hardly call them interests since they may simply be symptoms of neurosis or ignorance) before an encounter in which they are employed is the function of philosophy as I read Farred. Accordingly, “The only proper political response to the question that is presented without thinking, the question that is rooted in an objectionable politics, is to ‘speak’ thinking. It is to think before, long before, you are called upon to speak.”
The routine racism of the woman’s question to Farred (he a Black man doing manual labour in a well-to-do part of town) is generated by an immense cultural Unthought. Such a condition cannot be penetrated by rationality because it is its own rationality. It is probably not even accessible through psychological therapy since it isn’t bothersome to its ‘bearer.’ An angry or hostile response is only likely to reinforce racial presumptions.
Farred has in fact anticipated the woman’s Unthought. Prepared by his experience in apartheid South Africa as well as the bourgeoise United States, he has thought not only her Unthought but his own long in advance of his encounter with her. Farred recognises the collective characteristic of thought which often pretends to independence: “In thinking we stand, by ourselves, gathered into the thought of others, gathered by the thought of others, gathering others into our thinking. All the while our thoughts seek to gather others unto us.” Thus he is able to make a response which punctures her thinking (and his own), a provocation directed precisely at her Unthought without ever mentioning it. Farred simply replies, “Certainly, as long as you can match my university salary.”
I can’t claim to comprehend the nuances and subtleties of Heideggerian philosophy. Nor have I experienced the pervasive subtlety of racism. But I think I understand Farred’s point. Argument, in any of its forms, is inadequate to change minds. Thoughtful discourse of the kind he reports may indeed be an alternative. Preparing that “statement for the moment” by thinking about thinking could be just the tactic to pursue in combatting racism as well as the many other human ills.
Postscript: As I was reading Farred, this showed up in my newsfeed: https://apple.news/AyIeNoI53TJqOhOwPq...
November 16, 2019
อ่านไปก็ขำไป หนังสือว่าด้วยชีวิตของคนเขียนที่เติบโตมาในยุค Apartheid และการต่อสู้กับการเหยียดผิวในสังคมตะวันตก เรื่องเริ่มต้นจากความโกรธที่มีต่อคำพูดของผู้หญิงผิวขาวคนหนึ่งที่ต่อแก ก่อนจะลากโยงไปหานักคิดคนนู้นคนนี้นิดหน่อยและพูดถึงไฮเดกเกอร์จริงๆ อยู่เรื่องเขียนคืองานเรื่อง What is Called Thinking? ทั้งหมดเพื่อวิเคราะห์ว่ามีอะไรอยู่ภายใต้คำพูดของผู้หญิงคนนั้นและรีแอคชั่นที่คนเขียนมีและคิดว่าควรจะมีต่อประโยคๆ นั้น เท่านั้นเลยจริงๆ 5555555
January 20, 2025
This review is in the context of me not having a strong foundation in philosophy.
I picked this book up at a used book store because of the exaggerated title, the setting of the encounter at the core of the book being Ithaca, New York from the perspective of a Cornell professor (alma mater!), and an inherent curiosity in the overlap between Heidegger (whom I have not read but know of) and black professor at Cornell’s African Studies department.
I think that while the book’s concept and main point is interesting, I wasn’t a big fan of Farred’s writing style and approach to the subject matter. What began as a swift and engaging read got bogged down by a lot of philosophical jargon and poor economizing of words and sentences. He often will have several sentences that seem to overlap with one another and this makes the injection of complicated philosophical discussion that much more tedious to read through.
Also he REALLY seems to double down on his personal interjections. There is an entire paragraph’s worth of text about the meaning of driving a Volvo, which didn’t quite land with me. This happens a couple times over.
Also should be noted that he is a big fan of parentheses, which I understand and can personally relate to, but may have been a little overdone in this case. He also likes footnotes a lot, which I also relate to.
I think on a personal level reading this was a valuable exercise in tasting my own medicine regarding certain types of written style, LOL. I have butted heads with editors over stuff like this before, and through reading this I have gained a little more understanding of their perspectives.
Additionally: there were two typos I came across while reading, which reinforced my thought that the book could have used a slightly more present editor. ‘Boulder is’ is conjugated to “Boulder’s” and the same quote is spelled two different ways (one of them typo’d) within the same couple sentences. I’m being picky here but nonetheless should probably have been caught by someone if I’m catching it on a first read-through.
Regarding the actual ideas in the book though, I thought it was an interesting written piece stemming from a point of genuine reflection. There were a couple of bits near the end that I found especially enlightening:
“Every sentence, we can be sure, has its own history. More importantly, every sentence knows its own history.”
“The institution of thinking must … be true to itself only if it is willing to, time and time again, blow itself up. Thinking demands fidelity to thinking and thinking only.”
As someone with no previous experience with Heidegger, it was an interesting exposure to his philosophy which I will surely carry with me going forward. I found the discussion on the relationship of speech and thought particularly insightful.
I also enjoyed this particular observation:
“For the working class, especially the aspirational working class, the appearance of respectability is all”
I think overall the book would have benefited from being more ‘grounded’ (in the author’s life, the setting, society, etc). Also I would have appreciated a greater exploration into WHY specifically Heidegger and WHY it’s so different from any other philosophy. Though this may have been lost on me since, as mentioned, I’m not reading this with a strong foundation in philosophy.
I picked this book up at a used book store because of the exaggerated title, the setting of the encounter at the core of the book being Ithaca, New York from the perspective of a Cornell professor (alma mater!), and an inherent curiosity in the overlap between Heidegger (whom I have not read but know of) and black professor at Cornell’s African Studies department.
I think that while the book’s concept and main point is interesting, I wasn’t a big fan of Farred’s writing style and approach to the subject matter. What began as a swift and engaging read got bogged down by a lot of philosophical jargon and poor economizing of words and sentences. He often will have several sentences that seem to overlap with one another and this makes the injection of complicated philosophical discussion that much more tedious to read through.
Also he REALLY seems to double down on his personal interjections. There is an entire paragraph’s worth of text about the meaning of driving a Volvo, which didn’t quite land with me. This happens a couple times over.
Also should be noted that he is a big fan of parentheses, which I understand and can personally relate to, but may have been a little overdone in this case. He also likes footnotes a lot, which I also relate to.
I think on a personal level reading this was a valuable exercise in tasting my own medicine regarding certain types of written style, LOL. I have butted heads with editors over stuff like this before, and through reading this I have gained a little more understanding of their perspectives.
Additionally: there were two typos I came across while reading, which reinforced my thought that the book could have used a slightly more present editor. ‘Boulder is’ is conjugated to “Boulder’s” and the same quote is spelled two different ways (one of them typo’d) within the same couple sentences. I’m being picky here but nonetheless should probably have been caught by someone if I’m catching it on a first read-through.
Regarding the actual ideas in the book though, I thought it was an interesting written piece stemming from a point of genuine reflection. There were a couple of bits near the end that I found especially enlightening:
“Every sentence, we can be sure, has its own history. More importantly, every sentence knows its own history.”
“The institution of thinking must … be true to itself only if it is willing to, time and time again, blow itself up. Thinking demands fidelity to thinking and thinking only.”
As someone with no previous experience with Heidegger, it was an interesting exposure to his philosophy which I will surely carry with me going forward. I found the discussion on the relationship of speech and thought particularly insightful.
I also enjoyed this particular observation:
“For the working class, especially the aspirational working class, the appearance of respectability is all”
I think overall the book would have benefited from being more ‘grounded’ (in the author’s life, the setting, society, etc). Also I would have appreciated a greater exploration into WHY specifically Heidegger and WHY it’s so different from any other philosophy. Though this may have been lost on me since, as mentioned, I’m not reading this with a strong foundation in philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews