What do you think?
Rate this book
Heidegger: An Introduction
Polt unpacks Heidegger's central ideas in a straightforward way without sacrificing any of their richness, novelty or complexity.
210 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1998
42 people are currently reading
691 people want to read
About the author
Richard Polt
55 books27 followersRichard F. H. Polt is a professor of philosophy at Xavier University. He holds a B.A. in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago (1991). His main interests are the metaphysical and ethical problems of Greek and German philosophy. He has taught elective courses on a variety of topics, including Plato, Aristotle, Kant, German idealism, existentialism, slavery, time, and Heidegger.
Selected publications:
Heidegger: An Introduction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
A Companion to Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics." Edited by Richard Polt and Gregory Fried. New Haven: Yale Unversity Press, 2001.
Heidegger's "Being and Time": Critical Essays. Edited by Richard Polt. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
The Emergency of Being: On Heidegger's "Contributions to Philosophy." Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006.
Selected publications:
Heidegger: An Introduction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
A Companion to Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics." Edited by Richard Polt and Gregory Fried. New Haven: Yale Unversity Press, 2001.
Heidegger's "Being and Time": Critical Essays. Edited by Richard Polt. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
The Emergency of Being: On Heidegger's "Contributions to Philosophy." Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
February 23, 2023
Confession: I like this because it doesn't conform to the sterility that I assumed alot of philosophy on the whole has. I'm pretty sure that expectation did indeed come from taking the works of rationalist philosophers as, uh, the obvious.
(I may understand the murky origins of 'common sense', but that's not all there is to that assumption. I think it's also fair to note that the first few philosophy books I read were about mathematics, which um, can be a bit impassionate sometimes.)
I'm not claiming to fully understand everything Heidegger has talked about, or that I think everything he wrote that I understood was new to me, but really only that it was a breath of fresh air.
The work being fundamental, it's literally mostly about 'Being', I do understand it primarily more as a framework than much else. The changes brought by that, minus the metaphysical question you see first in many textbooks, are pretty subtle, which does well in reflecting the vocabulary he introduces (that even the author here wonders if he could sometimes give a rest).
Said metaphysical question? Why is there something other than nothing. When the author started an attempt to deal with this question, at first I was tempted to wonder if he would just give me a non-answer. Mostly because he started immediately talking about the experience of Being and how wondrous it is, and to be witness to it, and all. I realize soon enough though, despite the author doing more than hinting, that that's Heidegger's whole métier. I mean from what I comprehend, to Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum Heidegger's would just say mmm no, realizing you exist precedes that.
"Belief and knowledge are founded upon this primordial Being-in-the-world."
Or
"knowing presupposes dwelling" (referring to the, subtle I think, difference between the existence of Dasein (roughly the self) instead of existence of Being)
But sure, say you can understand the world does exist to you? Does it really exist though?
Here is where I thought it actually got interesting. The cartesian assumption here is that there's an inside and outside, that there is you and then there are others. The assumption that there could still be a 'you' (as you understand it) even if there weren't others, or anything else.
" 'World', in quotation marks, refers to "the totality of those entities which can be present-at-hand" (93/64): stars, atoms, oceans and so on. Often enough, when we are theorizing, we think only in terms of the "world": we view reality as a collection of objects. We disregard the world, that is, our own involvement in a significant whole."
Referring to great extent to the social existence of humans, and how it quite literally is part of our 'world'.
Another point I liked was that even given your conventional understanding of subjectivity and objectivity, that is, analogously the difference between what is quantitative and what isn't. Objective qualities mean nothing without context; the context tends to just be the significance given to it, which you can't have without a Dasein. Consider that you won't do anything that doesn't hold some level of significance, which is to some extent already there. But aside from the significance your cultural or social contexts have already given, you can't really place values on meaningless objects. And so
"even the 'objective' features of things, their present-at-hand attributes, reveal themselves only within a larger, significant context that cannot itself be explained in terms of what is present-at-hand."
Every mention of Heidegger I've seen mentions the concept of technology, which is fucking brilliant personally, and probably why I picked him up, or uh, an intro to him. The concept feels thematically like how he does philosophy generally, though I wonder if I should even say this only having read an introduction and one or two other resources.
[I wrote the review halfway through, so I didn't know the author actually mentions that by the end anyways]
For example, his phenomenological approach to uh, seemingly most things, but say understanding Being, tries to find the essence of it by looking at it's functions, noting its obfuscation if understood more ontically, more or less scientifically. How you are mostly made aware of it's existence when it 'stops working well', analogously, discrete moments of anxiety through your life (which he apparently encourages to embrace, and you can see the rationale, though I would also add when you're sad lmao, and you start questioning, but the feeling isnt of angst, though it has similar results). And, this is a tad more far fetched, but internalizing the object's 'way of seeing' (how your behaviour changes in possession of the technology), for Being that would be referring to the paranoia in the state of anxiety that simply is not present when you're engaged in your life otherwise.
I'm a bit averse to using Heidegger's own terminology to talk about this stuff. Their awkwardness is an obstacle to actually contemplating all this. There are benefits to using them ofcourse, and I can imagine why he did when there were words he could've used instead, that is, commonly used words would invite commonly understood concepts making it entirely unlikely that the reader actually goes away with understanding the subtlety of his work. Another benefit includes, for people probably more curious than me, a desire to understand those words more deeply, leading to a better understanding of what he's talking about. For example, according to my favourite podcast host ever, Stephen West from Philosophize This says literally everyone he's ever talked to had a different understanding of what Heidegger meant by fallenness (or was it falling?). Which I presumed meant something akin to engagement or involvement, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone pointed out what a primitive understanding that is of the word because I started questioning it after a few more pages myself.
On that note, his poetic use of language was addressed, and I found it to be insightful, probably because I wondered why he doesn't say things more, well, concretely.
Essentially by wanting it to be concrete, I want it to be more succinct, less 'wordy' or 'flowery'. My preference shows how I think poetic language to be a derivative, rewordings of language more practical. Poetry as a function of prosaic language basically.
(Which is the norm, but I dont think is the case often. Consider how feelings you're well acquainted with tend to find certain wordy and metaphorical formulations much more in line with it than, say, "I'm sad". Or how certain more obscure feelings have their most faithful translation in similar formulations, but still seem to ring true if you were to use some umbrella term for them like "uncanny", which is definitely more practical)
Another assumption is that the point of language is to most efficiently convey information. Like how it's done best with, say, symbolic logic. And though there are certain assumptions about certain symbols and for other concepts you could philosophize to great extent (validity say), the idea is still to point to something unambiguously, to the extent that the symbol is exactly what it represents.
From what I understand, Heidegger apparently disliked both those assumptions. Instead of believing in a big T truth, he believed in the evolving interpretations of it due to differences in culture. Translations of experience to information will always have to be flexible to be worth using by people, which divides the line between artificial and dead languages from what we do usually use.
That's not to mention that understanding for a great part is owing to language itself. I'm not sure we can really do much in the way of controlling it to be more efficient without restricting expression to a great extent.
How you interact with the world changes by how you understand it, assuming you let yourself change your interactions. And your understanding is greatly affected by how you use language. Knowing how Heidegger thinks of truth as unconcealment, and so revelatory in nature, you realize language has the power to do just that.
"Language is the house of Being because language, as Saying, is the mode of Appropriation."
Pretty sure you can gauge how clear this book really was, if you consider I didn't even read this well in any capacity (maybe properly read 60%? Or less), and this was my primary source to understanding Heidegger. I basically skipped whatever I thought was obvious to me, or whatever bored me, or whenever the author started getting into Heidegger's history. Uhhhh not a good look on me I imagine.
I appreciate how conclusively this book ends, even though I only read what could've been fun:
"Is Heidegger's philosophy, in the final analysis, a success or a failure? - one wants to ask. But maybe the categories of this "final analysis" are always inadequate for understanding a philosopher. When it comes to philosophy, no analysis is final: every analysis of a philosophy is the continuation of that philosophy, an exploration of its ongoing possibilities. And if success means establishing an unassailable and total truth, then no philosopher has succeeded."
(I may understand the murky origins of 'common sense', but that's not all there is to that assumption. I think it's also fair to note that the first few philosophy books I read were about mathematics, which um, can be a bit impassionate sometimes.)
I'm not claiming to fully understand everything Heidegger has talked about, or that I think everything he wrote that I understood was new to me, but really only that it was a breath of fresh air.
The work being fundamental, it's literally mostly about 'Being', I do understand it primarily more as a framework than much else. The changes brought by that, minus the metaphysical question you see first in many textbooks, are pretty subtle, which does well in reflecting the vocabulary he introduces (that even the author here wonders if he could sometimes give a rest).
Said metaphysical question? Why is there something other than nothing. When the author started an attempt to deal with this question, at first I was tempted to wonder if he would just give me a non-answer. Mostly because he started immediately talking about the experience of Being and how wondrous it is, and to be witness to it, and all. I realize soon enough though, despite the author doing more than hinting, that that's Heidegger's whole métier. I mean from what I comprehend, to Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum Heidegger's would just say mmm no, realizing you exist precedes that.
"Belief and knowledge are founded upon this primordial Being-in-the-world."
Or
"knowing presupposes dwelling" (referring to the, subtle I think, difference between the existence of Dasein (roughly the self) instead of existence of Being)
But sure, say you can understand the world does exist to you? Does it really exist though?
Here is where I thought it actually got interesting. The cartesian assumption here is that there's an inside and outside, that there is you and then there are others. The assumption that there could still be a 'you' (as you understand it) even if there weren't others, or anything else.
" 'World', in quotation marks, refers to "the totality of those entities which can be present-at-hand" (93/64): stars, atoms, oceans and so on. Often enough, when we are theorizing, we think only in terms of the "world": we view reality as a collection of objects. We disregard the world, that is, our own involvement in a significant whole."
Referring to great extent to the social existence of humans, and how it quite literally is part of our 'world'.
Another point I liked was that even given your conventional understanding of subjectivity and objectivity, that is, analogously the difference between what is quantitative and what isn't. Objective qualities mean nothing without context; the context tends to just be the significance given to it, which you can't have without a Dasein. Consider that you won't do anything that doesn't hold some level of significance, which is to some extent already there. But aside from the significance your cultural or social contexts have already given, you can't really place values on meaningless objects. And so
"even the 'objective' features of things, their present-at-hand attributes, reveal themselves only within a larger, significant context that cannot itself be explained in terms of what is present-at-hand."
Every mention of Heidegger I've seen mentions the concept of technology, which is fucking brilliant personally, and probably why I picked him up, or uh, an intro to him. The concept feels thematically like how he does philosophy generally, though I wonder if I should even say this only having read an introduction and one or two other resources.
[I wrote the review halfway through, so I didn't know the author actually mentions that by the end anyways]
For example, his phenomenological approach to uh, seemingly most things, but say understanding Being, tries to find the essence of it by looking at it's functions, noting its obfuscation if understood more ontically, more or less scientifically. How you are mostly made aware of it's existence when it 'stops working well', analogously, discrete moments of anxiety through your life (which he apparently encourages to embrace, and you can see the rationale, though I would also add when you're sad lmao, and you start questioning, but the feeling isnt of angst, though it has similar results). And, this is a tad more far fetched, but internalizing the object's 'way of seeing' (how your behaviour changes in possession of the technology), for Being that would be referring to the paranoia in the state of anxiety that simply is not present when you're engaged in your life otherwise.
I'm a bit averse to using Heidegger's own terminology to talk about this stuff. Their awkwardness is an obstacle to actually contemplating all this. There are benefits to using them ofcourse, and I can imagine why he did when there were words he could've used instead, that is, commonly used words would invite commonly understood concepts making it entirely unlikely that the reader actually goes away with understanding the subtlety of his work. Another benefit includes, for people probably more curious than me, a desire to understand those words more deeply, leading to a better understanding of what he's talking about. For example, according to my favourite podcast host ever, Stephen West from Philosophize This says literally everyone he's ever talked to had a different understanding of what Heidegger meant by fallenness (or was it falling?). Which I presumed meant something akin to engagement or involvement, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone pointed out what a primitive understanding that is of the word because I started questioning it after a few more pages myself.
On that note, his poetic use of language was addressed, and I found it to be insightful, probably because I wondered why he doesn't say things more, well, concretely.
Essentially by wanting it to be concrete, I want it to be more succinct, less 'wordy' or 'flowery'. My preference shows how I think poetic language to be a derivative, rewordings of language more practical. Poetry as a function of prosaic language basically.
(Which is the norm, but I dont think is the case often. Consider how feelings you're well acquainted with tend to find certain wordy and metaphorical formulations much more in line with it than, say, "I'm sad". Or how certain more obscure feelings have their most faithful translation in similar formulations, but still seem to ring true if you were to use some umbrella term for them like "uncanny", which is definitely more practical)
Another assumption is that the point of language is to most efficiently convey information. Like how it's done best with, say, symbolic logic. And though there are certain assumptions about certain symbols and for other concepts you could philosophize to great extent (validity say), the idea is still to point to something unambiguously, to the extent that the symbol is exactly what it represents.
From what I understand, Heidegger apparently disliked both those assumptions. Instead of believing in a big T truth, he believed in the evolving interpretations of it due to differences in culture. Translations of experience to information will always have to be flexible to be worth using by people, which divides the line between artificial and dead languages from what we do usually use.
That's not to mention that understanding for a great part is owing to language itself. I'm not sure we can really do much in the way of controlling it to be more efficient without restricting expression to a great extent.
How you interact with the world changes by how you understand it, assuming you let yourself change your interactions. And your understanding is greatly affected by how you use language. Knowing how Heidegger thinks of truth as unconcealment, and so revelatory in nature, you realize language has the power to do just that.
"Language is the house of Being because language, as Saying, is the mode of Appropriation."
Pretty sure you can gauge how clear this book really was, if you consider I didn't even read this well in any capacity (maybe properly read 60%? Or less), and this was my primary source to understanding Heidegger. I basically skipped whatever I thought was obvious to me, or whatever bored me, or whenever the author started getting into Heidegger's history. Uhhhh not a good look on me I imagine.
I appreciate how conclusively this book ends, even though I only read what could've been fun:
"Is Heidegger's philosophy, in the final analysis, a success or a failure? - one wants to ask. But maybe the categories of this "final analysis" are always inadequate for understanding a philosopher. When it comes to philosophy, no analysis is final: every analysis of a philosophy is the continuation of that philosophy, an exploration of its ongoing possibilities. And if success means establishing an unassailable and total truth, then no philosopher has succeeded."
August 21, 2013
Great introduction to this crucial thinker, and quite possibly the only good introduction to Heidegger for the uninitiated. The author does a great job of explaining Heidegger's relevance in the general philosophical tradition (i.e. his attack on Cartesian metaphysics) but at the same time, he also explores the deeply relevant and vital issues that made him the most important philosopher of the 20th century ; questions of authenticity, of man's relationship to time and death, of our relationship to others. All of these questions are looked at in a completely new way by Heidegger, which makes a precursor to the existentialists who would later appropriate and adopt his ideas.
Heidegger can be thought of as a cross between Nietzsche and Aristotle ; he takes from the latter a careful and detailed philosophical construction, and from the former, a deeply-held concern for the future of a humanity struggling in a nihilistic epoch. To engage with Heidegger, the interested party would have to go through his magnum opus, Being and Time, but this is well nigh impossible for Heidegger expects familiarity not only with most of the Western Canon but also with his predecessors in the phenomenological tradition. This book makes Heidegger's thought accessible to the general reader, but even then, one must have at least a basic idea of what Kant had to say about Being, and what are the general aims and notions of phenomenology. This can be accomplished by a quick search through Wikipedia, and would be great for helping one to get through this book.
I can't recommend this book enough ; a lucid, and thoroughly engaging introduction to one of the darkest and most unsettling thinkers in philosophy. It's the kind of book that changes your life.
Heidegger can be thought of as a cross between Nietzsche and Aristotle ; he takes from the latter a careful and detailed philosophical construction, and from the former, a deeply-held concern for the future of a humanity struggling in a nihilistic epoch. To engage with Heidegger, the interested party would have to go through his magnum opus, Being and Time, but this is well nigh impossible for Heidegger expects familiarity not only with most of the Western Canon but also with his predecessors in the phenomenological tradition. This book makes Heidegger's thought accessible to the general reader, but even then, one must have at least a basic idea of what Kant had to say about Being, and what are the general aims and notions of phenomenology. This can be accomplished by a quick search through Wikipedia, and would be great for helping one to get through this book.
I can't recommend this book enough ; a lucid, and thoroughly engaging introduction to one of the darkest and most unsettling thinkers in philosophy. It's the kind of book that changes your life.
October 11, 2024
October 2024: A review 8 years after my original reading of this book. I am used to re-reading philosophy books, as I think anyone serious about philosophy must be. Eight years further into my philosophical journey, and I got more from this book than the first reading. Heidegger is a complex topic even in an introductory format, and I still think this book makes a very valiant and at times quite successful attempt to give one a flavour of Heidegger. There is much that remains murky, and it seems that will always be true with Heidegger. If you are interested in Heidegger and want somewhere to start, this seems a good place. However, even this, a most introductory of reads on Heidegger, requires pretty close attention.
June 2016:Before anyone gets heated - my review rating refers to my view on this book, not to Heidegger or his philosophy. I say this because Heidegger certainly seems to bring out strong views. Some see him as one of the most brilliant philosophers of all time. Others as sham philosopher who wrote cryptically to cover vacuous nonsense, and on top of that a Nazi! In the middle sit a lot of people who don't care and cannot be bothered to make the effort to read Heidegger. It's hard to think of another philosopher who brings out quite such a difference in views.
Before reading this book, apart from some very very high level outlines, I knew little or nothing about him. Most of my philosophy training was in classic analytical philosophy, which tends to scorn Heidegger.
The bulk of this book is about Heidegger's first book: Being and Time. It comments briefly on his earlier writing and has some biographical information as well. It is not the easiest of reads, but it is not hard either. If you are used to reading philosophy texts then you should not struggle too much.
Do I now think I understand Heidegger? No. But then my feeling is that understanding Heidegger requires a long period of serious study. However, the book has given me at least a sense of what he was interested in, some of his ideas, and a flavour for his writing. I'm not sure my life is going to be long enough or ever dull enough to read much more Heidegger, but at least I now have that sense. Given the complexity of Heidegger, his play with language and tendency to make up terminology which is hard to translate, that alone is a pretty good achievement in one book of 180 pages.
June 2016:Before anyone gets heated - my review rating refers to my view on this book, not to Heidegger or his philosophy. I say this because Heidegger certainly seems to bring out strong views. Some see him as one of the most brilliant philosophers of all time. Others as sham philosopher who wrote cryptically to cover vacuous nonsense, and on top of that a Nazi! In the middle sit a lot of people who don't care and cannot be bothered to make the effort to read Heidegger. It's hard to think of another philosopher who brings out quite such a difference in views.
Before reading this book, apart from some very very high level outlines, I knew little or nothing about him. Most of my philosophy training was in classic analytical philosophy, which tends to scorn Heidegger.
The bulk of this book is about Heidegger's first book: Being and Time. It comments briefly on his earlier writing and has some biographical information as well. It is not the easiest of reads, but it is not hard either. If you are used to reading philosophy texts then you should not struggle too much.
Do I now think I understand Heidegger? No. But then my feeling is that understanding Heidegger requires a long period of serious study. However, the book has given me at least a sense of what he was interested in, some of his ideas, and a flavour for his writing. I'm not sure my life is going to be long enough or ever dull enough to read much more Heidegger, but at least I now have that sense. Given the complexity of Heidegger, his play with language and tendency to make up terminology which is hard to translate, that alone is a pretty good achievement in one book of 180 pages.
November 12, 2015
Good overview on Heidegger's thinking but Polt's comments and later analyses are both short sighted and seem to entirely miss the point. He offers no real arguments to support his own thinking and the commentary comes off as useless and kind of bothersome.
April 16, 2020
Intelligible introduction to Heigedder - got me eager to go straight to the source.
July 14, 2019
Excellent introduction to the life and thoughts of Martin Heidegger. I am not familiar with the genre of introductory works, and in particular I'm unaware of any alternative intro's to Heidegger - but I can't imagine any alternative to be as lucid, concise and insightful as this book.
Polt explains the early life of Heidegger and uses half of the book to take the reader on a tour through Sein und Zeit (1927) - Heidegger's impenetrable magnum opus. One of the strengths of this introduction is the clear exposition of Heidegger's ideas - Polt only occassionaly offers his own interpretations (and clearly mentions them as such) and even more rarely offers his opinion on themes. The last third of the book explains how Heidegger, after being inaugurated in 1929, got tangled up with Nazism, and how his philosophical thoughts changed dramatically in the 1930's.
Heidegger went from setting out to answer the question of Being as a means to offer humanity a new, goal - an existential meaning - to abandoning this attempt altogether and claiming that the question of Being is unanswerable and that its meaning is "to be able to wait, a whole life long."
'Metafysican-turned-mystic' sums it up neatly.
Anyway, I can definitely recommend Polt's book to anyone trying to wrap his/her head around Heidegger's obscure and eccentric philosophy!
Polt explains the early life of Heidegger and uses half of the book to take the reader on a tour through Sein und Zeit (1927) - Heidegger's impenetrable magnum opus. One of the strengths of this introduction is the clear exposition of Heidegger's ideas - Polt only occassionaly offers his own interpretations (and clearly mentions them as such) and even more rarely offers his opinion on themes. The last third of the book explains how Heidegger, after being inaugurated in 1929, got tangled up with Nazism, and how his philosophical thoughts changed dramatically in the 1930's.
Heidegger went from setting out to answer the question of Being as a means to offer humanity a new, goal - an existential meaning - to abandoning this attempt altogether and claiming that the question of Being is unanswerable and that its meaning is "to be able to wait, a whole life long."
'Metafysican-turned-mystic' sums it up neatly.
Anyway, I can definitely recommend Polt's book to anyone trying to wrap his/her head around Heidegger's obscure and eccentric philosophy!
May 19, 2010
There's plenty to dislike about Heidegger - the nazism, the self-mythologization, the rather too frequent dips into nonsense - but I most dislike the insufferable literary habits of his epigoni. Thankfully Mr Polt writes clearly if not beautifully.
Although he has a penchant for the hackneyed or tasteless which I've come to expect from Heideggerians (e.g., Heidegger's writing can be beautiful, Polt says, and gives as his example: "the clearing center itself encircles all that is, as does the nothing, which we scarcely know." Indeed. Or the original idea that we shouldn't speak well by 'policing our words,' but by "learning to respect the mysterious powers of language." That seems to me, well, a little bit like Metaphysics, treating humans as objects; in this case objects which are affected by the Great God of Language.), it never gets in the way of the point, which he makes seem important. I think maybe I *should* try to be open to Being a bit more often.
That Polt structures the book more as a commentary and less as a monograph is the major downside here; the good news, of course, is that it is very helpful as a guide to Heidegger's own writing.
Although he has a penchant for the hackneyed or tasteless which I've come to expect from Heideggerians (e.g., Heidegger's writing can be beautiful, Polt says, and gives as his example: "the clearing center itself encircles all that is, as does the nothing, which we scarcely know." Indeed. Or the original idea that we shouldn't speak well by 'policing our words,' but by "learning to respect the mysterious powers of language." That seems to me, well, a little bit like Metaphysics, treating humans as objects; in this case objects which are affected by the Great God of Language.), it never gets in the way of the point, which he makes seem important. I think maybe I *should* try to be open to Being a bit more often.
That Polt structures the book more as a commentary and less as a monograph is the major downside here; the good news, of course, is that it is very helpful as a guide to Heidegger's own writing.
November 26, 2017
Slightly trivializing and repetitive, but definitely user-friendly and makes Heidegger easier (but not easy) to understand. Recommended especially for beginners.
March 30, 2022
Good introduction, goes over core elements of Heidegger, as well as Being and Time. The first half goes over the central elements of Being and Time, seperated as Division I and II, the latter exploring the temporality of Dasein. The last half of the book is especially insightful with regards to Heidegger's personal/politics, and his ontology as well as differences with Sartre. Richard Polt gives a conscise and definitive account of Heidegger for those who want to engage with Heidegger's philosophy. However, with regards to Heidegger's personal and political committements, Polt failes to mention the Black Notebooks, though this book was published in 1999, originally, so I can forgive the oversight, but the talk of Heidegger's antisemetism is nuanced and appreciated all the same. Would recommend if you want to read Heidegger, though as the author states, it's an introduction, not a comprehensive guide. Idk, nuance could've been lost on me.
July 10, 2013
I’m no authority, but from a lay reader’s perspective, it does seem that Polt has done a nearly heroic job in crafting an instructive overview of this seminal and complex thinker. So, the Polt book itself I gave four stars.
As for Heidegger, well . . . . I went into this book intending to engage it actively, to use it as a tool for reaching some final personal judgment of Heidegger’s thought. Of course one encounters Heidegger often enough; I’d previously read a shorter overview of his work, a very enjoyable biography (Between Good and Evil), and, like anyone, had run across his work, including direct passages from his texts, countless times over the years.
After Polt, this is my take on Heidegger. The man’s intellectual prowess is obvious. But he seems to have embarked on a doomed mission. Early on, especially, he was creative and usefully pointed out the error, or at least the weak points, in how we typically approach questions of Being, and questions that may plausibly be said to implicate Being. He suggested fresh and valuable corrective points of view, and made some worthy coinages. By which I mean that he coined concepts, or conceptual nuances, and not just terms.
But he set himself what proved to be an insurmountably difficult task. And then he stuck almost monomaniacally to that task, wanting to bend almost everything into an ontological question, pursued in his special idiom, even when that tack no longer proved fruitful. I can’t decide whether increasing wisdom should have led him to move on from this approach, or whether he’s to be applauded for sticking so single-mindedly to his project of (let’s just call it) revealing deep truths about Being. Before too long his work, if not his project, eroded into increasingly masturbatory and valueless word games. The ever-lucid Bertrand Russell described some part of Heidegger’s work as (paraphrasing) “language run riot,” and I’m inclined to agree. Admitting, again, that some of his earlier perspectives and coinages were novel, powerful, and useful. Ultimately, though, his project failed. Maybe he should have realized that.
I wonder to what extent Heidegger stands as the preeminent sanction for generations of later grad-student gobbledygook and filigrees of babble. Nietzsche said difficult things clearly before Heidegger; Arendt (and others) would say difficult things clearly after him. (Though, I admit, these thinkers didn’t always share Heidegger’s specific objectives.) So I tend to doubt that his endless complications were necessary. He did not find the language, or succeed in creating a useful one (save in a few early cases), for the difficult things he wanted to pursue.
I’m no expert. I don’t have the technical vocabulary, which to some important extent means the conceptual equipment, to adequately treat Heidegger. But I haven’t got all the time in the world, either. After Polt and some fairly concentrated attention, I think my layman’s conclusion will leave Heidegger aside with a more or less respectful, “Meh.”
As for Heidegger, well . . . . I went into this book intending to engage it actively, to use it as a tool for reaching some final personal judgment of Heidegger’s thought. Of course one encounters Heidegger often enough; I’d previously read a shorter overview of his work, a very enjoyable biography (Between Good and Evil), and, like anyone, had run across his work, including direct passages from his texts, countless times over the years.
After Polt, this is my take on Heidegger. The man’s intellectual prowess is obvious. But he seems to have embarked on a doomed mission. Early on, especially, he was creative and usefully pointed out the error, or at least the weak points, in how we typically approach questions of Being, and questions that may plausibly be said to implicate Being. He suggested fresh and valuable corrective points of view, and made some worthy coinages. By which I mean that he coined concepts, or conceptual nuances, and not just terms.
But he set himself what proved to be an insurmountably difficult task. And then he stuck almost monomaniacally to that task, wanting to bend almost everything into an ontological question, pursued in his special idiom, even when that tack no longer proved fruitful. I can’t decide whether increasing wisdom should have led him to move on from this approach, or whether he’s to be applauded for sticking so single-mindedly to his project of (let’s just call it) revealing deep truths about Being. Before too long his work, if not his project, eroded into increasingly masturbatory and valueless word games. The ever-lucid Bertrand Russell described some part of Heidegger’s work as (paraphrasing) “language run riot,” and I’m inclined to agree. Admitting, again, that some of his earlier perspectives and coinages were novel, powerful, and useful. Ultimately, though, his project failed. Maybe he should have realized that.
I wonder to what extent Heidegger stands as the preeminent sanction for generations of later grad-student gobbledygook and filigrees of babble. Nietzsche said difficult things clearly before Heidegger; Arendt (and others) would say difficult things clearly after him. (Though, I admit, these thinkers didn’t always share Heidegger’s specific objectives.) So I tend to doubt that his endless complications were necessary. He did not find the language, or succeed in creating a useful one (save in a few early cases), for the difficult things he wanted to pursue.
I’m no expert. I don’t have the technical vocabulary, which to some important extent means the conceptual equipment, to adequately treat Heidegger. But I haven’t got all the time in the world, either. After Polt and some fairly concentrated attention, I think my layman’s conclusion will leave Heidegger aside with a more or less respectful, “Meh.”
May 5, 2020
I studied Kierkegaard with Richard Polt one summer many years ago. His introduction to Heidegger is readable and useful for navigating the sometimes impenetrable shoals of his thought. I found this useful to have beside me while attempting to read Being and Time.
May 14, 2011
The section-by-section guide to Being and Time (Chapters 3 and 4) was extremely helpful. I read Heidegger first and came to my own conclusions, but after consulting Polt and Blattner I was persuaded that my reading was often not quite right. Heidegger is so difficult to read (especially Being and Time) that's almost like reading in another language -- it is comforting to have a "translation" that is closer to one's own tongue, and that is the purpose Polt's book served for me. It was a sturdy crutch, and now that it has served its purpose I don't need it so much. But I heartily recommend it for those who are making a sincere effort to hobble over this very rough terrain.
Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to finish the last chapter on later Heidegger because some wretched Cartesian has permanently borrowed it from the library. Curses!
Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to finish the last chapter on later Heidegger because some wretched Cartesian has permanently borrowed it from the library. Curses!
January 3, 2023
First of all Richard Polt does a fantastic job in introducing the reader to Heidegger's ideas. I started taking notes until page 70 of the book, and decided to binge read the pages without re-reading passages and without taking notes, and without pausing.
Second of all, there are a lot of interesting sections that I found worthwhile reading. The topic about Heidegger's philosophy in connection to Nazism; the section discussing Heidegger's involvement with Nazism; Heidegger's philosophy in relation to philosophical traditions of the past and his subsequent dialogue with philosophical ideas of the past. Where I find the Heidegger "bogged me down" was the incessant used by Heidegger himself. I read bits of Being and Time whilst reading this book, which is what Holt suggests the reader do. But nevertheless, I found the explanations of Heidegger could not salvage his anarchic philosophical system. I don't know what else to call it, but anarchic will have to do.
Heidegger the pre-modernist is much more interesting than Heidegger the postmodernist, if one is to label him in anyway. Heidegger the political theorist is also fascinating. Heidegger the phenomenologst and the ontologist are also interesting. But what I found most painful was Heidegger the existentialist. Such anxiety and disturbance about the "enmeshment" he considered the Dasein to be in. Obviously this is also slightly reviewing the ideas Being and Time, not Polt book in and of itself - which is a great introduction.
Second of all, there are a lot of interesting sections that I found worthwhile reading. The topic about Heidegger's philosophy in connection to Nazism; the section discussing Heidegger's involvement with Nazism; Heidegger's philosophy in relation to philosophical traditions of the past and his subsequent dialogue with philosophical ideas of the past. Where I find the Heidegger "bogged me down" was the incessant used by Heidegger himself. I read bits of Being and Time whilst reading this book, which is what Holt suggests the reader do. But nevertheless, I found the explanations of Heidegger could not salvage his anarchic philosophical system. I don't know what else to call it, but anarchic will have to do.
Heidegger the pre-modernist is much more interesting than Heidegger the postmodernist, if one is to label him in anyway. Heidegger the political theorist is also fascinating. Heidegger the phenomenologst and the ontologist are also interesting. But what I found most painful was Heidegger the existentialist. Such anxiety and disturbance about the "enmeshment" he considered the Dasein to be in. Obviously this is also slightly reviewing the ideas Being and Time, not Polt book in and of itself - which is a great introduction.
December 8, 2024
Heidegger is a profound and beautiful thinker. Coming from an analytic perspective, his views are very refreshing in how he makes the primacy of Being replace Cartesian-inspired intellectualist talk of propositions and mental contents. He is a breath of fresh air in that regard. Got me interested in diving straight into Being and Time!
November 13, 2023
Probably one of the clearest secondary sources I've read on Heidegger. The sections on later Heidegger were incredibly helpful and led me to read with more clarity. The examples Polt gives are so simple yet so revelatory.
Read
May 12, 2025This was alright. I can see how people might gain some value from aspects of Heidegger's thought, but I think a lot of what's useful here is probably found in better forms in Marxist and later 20th-century authors.
December 26, 2020
Brilliant... I read it side by side with “Being and Time” and it gave me great help in understanding some parts.
March 28, 2021
As others have said, an accessible introduction to a difficult, important thinker.
March 30, 2021
Best commentary on being and time
May 24, 2021
One of the best books on Heidegger. Lucid and detailed.
August 2, 2021
As easy as Heidegger going to get. Brilliant commentary.
November 13, 2021
Without having read Heidegger himself (apart from a couple of essays), this was damn excellent. Incredibly concise while covering massive ground. A herculean effort which succeeds.
Read
December 22, 2024Excellent chapter-by-chapter summary and commentary that makes Being and Time much easier to approach.
May 7, 2025
A suitable start for my Heidegger journey for sure. it's highly detailed and delves into a lot of topics which is really impressive for a book of this length.
January 22, 2015
Excellent coverage of "being and time" and "later" heidegger backed up by extensive quotes. In the discussion of "on the origin of the work of art" discusses Nietzsche's "birth of tragedy" and it's influence on this work. "Earth" for heidegger basically means what jung means by "the unconscious" but heidegger would object to the rigid concepts of "conscious" and "unconscious" and doesn't acknowledge these concepts as they suggest dividing the world into "objective" and "subjective" that he also rejects. For heidegger, the "world" is synonymous with Nietzsche's appoliinian or dreams, which is of the same cloth and continuous with waking consciousness, and "earth" corresponds to "the Dionysian" or drunkeness. Art tells us that "earth" does not show itself. "World" is the organized, understandable cultural life. Dreams are part of "world" along with waking daylight consciousness. "Earth", as jung would say, is what we don't even have an inkling of and is "really" unknown or mysterious. As heidegger says in "kant and the problem of metaphysics", the unknown is not simply that of which we know nothing, but rather that in the "known" that is disquieting and that pushes up against us. It seems to me that you can equate "world" to "being" and "earth" to "nothingness" in the work entitled "introduction to metaphysics."
June 16, 2012
More than ten years ago, my old undergraduate Analytic philosophy professor, James Ballie, recommended this. Last month, I finally read it. The best aspect of the book is its presentation of Heidegger's strongest arguments within the context of the history of modern philosophy.
As an aside: in front of his class, my old professor also said "doesn't this guy look like a child molester?"
As an aside: in front of his class, my old professor also said "doesn't this guy look like a child molester?"
March 13, 2014
Its not easy explaining Heidegger to the lay person. Polt wades into the deep waters and creates some visibility.
If you choose to study this philosopher, this is a key to unlock some of the material.
If you choose to study this philosopher, this is a key to unlock some of the material.
August 24, 2009
I'm working through Being and Time, using this book and Herbert Dreyfus's lectures (mp3) as guides.
This introduction has been invaluable.
This introduction has been invaluable.
February 22, 2010
A fantastic introduction to Heidegger.
Read
August 30, 2013Succinct and substantive. The intro to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews