Martin Heidegger, who is acclaimed as a seminal thinker and a significant philosopher of the present era, is sometimes referred to as "a man without a biography’.1 Though this might be an exaggeration, yet his life was simple and normal as that of an ordinary German professor. Except for the period between May, 1933 to February, 1934 during which he was involved with the Nazi party of Hitler, his life was basically uneventful.2 He was born at the little town of Messkirch, in Southwest Germany on September 26, 1889. For the most part he lived and worked there, in the town of his birth - except for the five years at Marburg - until he died on May 26, 1976, four months before his 87th birthday.3 Some of his writings highlight his life and his multifaceted personality. The Course of My Life,4 A Recollection,5 and My Way to Phenomenology6 give biographical details regarding Heidegger’s life, education, academic pursuits and the influence of other thinkers upon him. His essays Why Do I Stay in the Provinces?7 and Pathway8 point to Heidegger’s desire for oneness with nature, which one can experience only in the simple, still, calm and rustic life of the country. Such a natural environment gave him the perfect space and the solitude9 that was needed for his philosophical search.

Throughout his life, Heidegger was a seeker. As every seeker is called to be, Heidegger was courageous in his search never being afraid of going wrong while seeking. But, when he realized that he was in the wrong, he was never apologetic about it; nor did he regret his having gone astray from the truth. Instead, he moved forward and continued his search. This is clear from the statements he made during the Der Spiegel Interview.10 This attitude made Heidegger isolate himself from National Socialism and resign the office of the Rector of the Freiburg University.11 He did not count the cost of choosing what is true, when he knew it to be the truth. Bernhard Welte gives the following tribute to Heidegger:

He [Heidegger] was always seeking and always underway. At various times he emphatically characterized his thinking as a path. He traveled this path without ceasing. There were bends and turns along it; certainly there were stretches where he went astray. Heidegger always understood the path as one that was given him, sent to him. He sought to understand this word as a response to an indication to which he listened without respite. For him, to think was to thank, to make a grateful response to that appeal.12 

One opinion sees the whole of Heidegger’s thinking as contained in his major work, Being and Time, as it anticipates all the themes that occur in his later writings.13 Another view recognizes three separate periods in Heidegger’s path of thinking.14 A third view speaks of two periods in Heidegger’s thinking named Early Heidegger or Heidegger I, and Later Heidegger or Heidegger II. This view is held by a number of reputed commentators of Heidegger. According to them there was a shift15 in Heidegger’s thinking that made him move from the early to the latter phase, though they differ among themselves regarding the nature of the shift. Thinkers like John Wild, Alphonse de Waelhens, Lazalo Versenyi and some others see a break in Heidegger’s thought such that there is no bridge leading from Heidegger I to Heidegger II. In other words, they speak of a complete break between the two phases. Others, such as Otto Poeggeler, William J. Richardson, Walter Schulz and Werner Marx, though recognizing the shift in Heidegger’s thinking, hold for a coherence and unity of both phases. In other words, they see both phases, not as isolated from each other, but, as having a continuity, both in content and aim, though the perspective is different. Thus, for them, Heidegger II is an explication and an interpretation of Heidegger I from the perspective of Being.16 

The view of the second group of thinkers seems to be in agreement with what Heidegger himself thought about the shift in his thinking. For Heidegger, the change involved in the shift is neither a break in his thinking, nor an abandonment of the earlier standpoint for the later. To quote him: "This turning [shift] is not a change of standpoint from Being and Time, but it is the thinking that first arrives at the location of that dimension out of which Being and Time is experienced."17 Besides there are some topics which Heidegger promises - at various places in Being and Time - that he would take up in the section of ‘Time and Being’,18 for example, the fuller development of the idea of phenomenology,19 of ontology20 and the discussion on language.21 The fact that Heidegger wanted to publish these topics in the unpublished section of Being and Time, viz., ‘Time and Being’, from a different perspective, substantiates Heidegger’s claim that the change envisaged in the shift is already present at the initial stage of Being and Time. Heidegger clarifies this point when he says: " Only by way of what [Heidegger] I has thought does one gain access to what is to be thought by [Heidegger] II. But the thoughts of [Heidegger] I becomes possible only if it is in [Heidegger] II."22 Thus, the ‘matter-for-thought’ in Being and Time has not really changed even after the shift, but the perspective with which it is considered changes. Heidegger remarks: ". . . the road [Being and Time] has taken remains even today a necessary one, if our Dasein is to be stirred by the question of Being."23 Commenting on this point J.L. Mehta concludes that the writings after the shift are a critique and a commentary on Being and Time.24 Therefore, for Heidegger, the completion of the shift "is not a turning to a new position, but rather is a return to the original point of departure and a return to the ground upon which the circle-of-thought has rested from the beginning."25 

Two events seem to have contributed to the shift in Heidegger thought. They are: the failure of Being and Time to accomplish its intended task of clarifying the meaning of Being and Heidegger’s political involvement. In Being and Time, Heidegger raises the question of Being26 and analyzes it in relation to time.27 He chooses the existential analysis of Dasein28 in man and Dasein in his later writings, as he uses them as synonyms. Cf. BH, Wegmarken, p. 346.; BW, pp. 228-229. So there is an inconsistency in Heidegger’s use of these terms. We translate it as ‘human person’ or ‘man’, as the self-structure Heidegger speaks of in the term ‘Dasein’; in the last analysis, it is the human entity. In clarifying the nature of Dasein Heidegger distinguishes between two types of analysis, viz., the existential-ontological and the existentiell-ontical. The first pair refers to the realm of structures underlying Dasein, while the second pair refers to the level of the concrete acts of existence. It is in the latter that the former is actualized in its various possibilities. Man is existentiell and ontic; but Dasein is that which constitutes the ‘Da’ of ‘Sein’ in man. Cf. SZ, pp. 11-13.; BT, pp. 32-34. Cf. also James M. Demske, Being, Man and Death: A Key to Heidegger, p. 17. In later Heidegger, he ignores this distinction as well. to clarify the meaning of Being, as he has the ontic, ontological and ontico-ontological priority.29 In this endeavor, that which interrogates (das Befragte) is Dasein; that which is interrogated (das Gefragte) is Being; and that which is to be found out by asking (das Erfragte) is the meaning of Being.30 Even though this was Heidegger’s aim, he did not succeed, as he dealt only with the preparatory analysis of Dasein and his relationship to temporality; section three that should have treated the relationship between temporality and Being, viz., `Time and Being’ did not appear as per the original plan.31 Heidegger indicates the inadequacy of Being and Time to accomplish the task of clarifying the meaning of Being at the end of the written portions of Being and Time as follows:

. . . our way of exhibiting the constitution of Dasein’s being remains only one way which we take. . . . Whether this is the only way or even the right one at all, can be decided only after one has gone along it. The conflict as to the interpretation of Being cannot be allayed, because it has not been enkindled. . . . it is of the kind which cannot get enkindled unless preparations are made for it: Towards this alone the foregoing investigation is on the way.32 

 

Thus, it is clear that the published portion of Being and Time has failed to achieve its original aim. The reason for the failure of Being and Time was that, though Heidegger wanted to break with the metaphysical tradition and subjectivistic thinking, he was not able to completely escape it at that time.33 So in Being and Time, he raises the question of Being from the subjectivistic perspective, even though he did not want to do so. Thus, in Being and Time, Heidegger has each leg in a different boat. On the one side, he wants to extricate himself from the metaphysical-subjectivistic thinking and on the other side, he is unable to pull himself out of the very thinking he detests. "Throughout Being and Time there is a tension owing to the fact that the work lies half-way between metaphysical thinking and the new way of thinking."34 For example, Heidegger speaks of Dasein’s essence as existence in the sense of transcendence, and yet limits himself by saying that every existence is one’s own, i.e., an owned selfhood. Again, the authenticity of Dasein is reached by the call of conscience, which cannot be controlled by Dasein: But authenticity is attained only when Dasein resolutely owns the call in anticipation of his own death. These examples from Being and Time indicate that it was bound to fail, as it was attempting a new way of thinking without fully escaping metaphysical thinking.35 To quote Heidegger:

The adequate execution and completion of this other thinking that abandons subjectivity [Heidegger II] is surely made more difficult by the fact that in the publication of Being and Time, the third division of the first part ‘Time and Being’ was held back. . . . The section in question was held back because thinking [Heidegger I] failed in the adequate saying of this turning [shift] and did not succeed with the help of the language of Metaphysics.36 

 

Besides the failure of Being and Time, Heidegger’s political involvement may possibly be another event that influenced Heidegger to make the shift in his thinking. Martin Heidegger actively supported, especially in his public addresses at the University of Freiburg and to many workers’ groups, the cause of Hitler and his National Socialist Party,37 besides being an active member of the party for ten months between 1933 to 1934. One might wonder why such an outstanding thinker of the time, who was supposed to be the spiritual leader of the academic community and the nation,38 could fall in line with the thinking of Hitler and the Nazi Party.

One reason was Heidegger’s belief in himself as the philosopher-prophet who was called to guide the German nation in that troubled period of the 1930s, just as Fichte did in the early 1800s. Besides, he also believed that with his national and international reputation as a philosopher he could do something to alter the destiny of Germany for the better. It would have been wrong for any person of Heidegger’s standing to remain unmoved when his nation went through such turmoil. As an authentic patriotic citizen of Germany, he may have felt within himself that he should give spiritual direction to the German nation. This was probably what the nation expected of an outstanding thinker like Heidegger.39 Just as Plato attempted to bring about a philosopher-king at Syracuse by genuine support and education, Heidegger felt that the particular political situation of Germany in 1933 called him to guide the political leader of Germany.40 This may have led to Heidegger’s support Hitler and his National Socialist Party, the dominant political force in the 1930s.

Another possible reason was his belief that Adolf Hitler was a practical, wise man and an efficient leader of the German nation, in whose hands the Germans must place their destiny. The 1930s was a period of general political confusion. There were some 22 political parties in Germany, quite divergent in their views regarding national policies.41 As none of these parties was able to solve the nation’s problems, a strong leader and a national party was the need of the time. Heidegger saw in Adolf Hitler and in the National Socialist Party an answer to this need. So he spoke in favor of Hitler.42 Even though the initial impression of Heidegger was negative, during the early months of his tenure as the Rector of the Freiburg University he realized that he needed to make some compromises with the officials of the party to get a wider audience for his views.43 Heidegger differed with the Party, especially on its racist tendencies, but believed that the movement could be guided by the presence of intellectuals like him from within.44 

Heidegger’s belief in himself as a philosopher-king to guide the German destiny, his belief in Hitter and his party as the salvation of German nation, and belief in his and other intellectuals’ ability to direct the course of the National Socialist Party, all came to a standstill when circumstances forced him to resign from his office of Rector in spring 1934.45 After his resignation, the intellectuals of the Nazi Party attacked Heidegger personally in their writings.46 He was constantly watched, especially during his lectures.47 In 1934, he was prevented from participating in the International Philosophical Congress in Prague, and in 1937 was excluded from the German delegation for the International Descartes Congress in Paris.48 Heidegger was declared the most expendable professor and sent to the Rhine to build fortifications.49 From these happenings after his resignation as Rector, Heidegger realized that he was unrealistic in believing that he could change the course of National Socialism, which was a racist social Darwinism, an active subjectivism and a philosophy of will-to-power. It also dawned on him that besides having no control over this type of world view, he himself was in its hold as long as he was an ardent supporter of the National Socialism of Hitler. This awareness made Heidegger undertake a study on Nietzsche’s philosophy of will-to-power from 1936-1944. He gave lectures on Nietzsche in which he criticized the National Socialist world view which accepted Nietzsche’s philosophy as its basis.50 Heidegger’s involvement with the political situation in Germany between 1933-1934 enabled him to understand experientially the danger of subjectivistic thinking, characterized by the will-to-power that was active in Hitler’s Nazi ideology and which he himself was attempting in Being and Time. This led him to shift his thinking, enabling him to raise the question of Being from a new perspective.

As early as the 1920s, Heidegger was aware of the fact that he had to break with metaphysical-subjectivistic thinking and pose the question of Being in a non-metaphysical way. But he was neither certain of the exact method of approach, nor did he have, at that time, the right conceptual frame-work. Heidegger began to grasp the full implications of the shift and the direction he needed to take in order to raise the question of Being only after the foundering of Being and Time and his political involvement in 1933. This enabled him to realize the inability of metaphysical language to understand Being and the danger of subjectivistic metaphysical thinking, respectively. In his letter to William Richardson Heidegger notes: ". . . the matter thought in the term reversal [shift] was already in my thinking ten years prior to 1947."51 This clearly points to the fact that before, during and after his political involvement, Heidegger began to reflect seriously on the shift. Thus, the completion of the shift happened in Heidegger’s thinking during the decade before 1947, even though Heidegger was aware of the shift as early as the 1920s.

The shift from Heidegger I to Heidegger II is then not something abrupt or sudden. It not only is related to Heidegger’s intellectual development, but is conditioned by his political involvement. Basically it is a shift in perspective rather than a reversal in Heidegger’s thinking. Heidegger I is a movement from Dasein to Being, while Heidegger II is a movement from Being to Dasein. Firstly, this involves a change of perspective in which the emphasis moves from Dasein to Being as the horizon of Dasein. Secondly there is a change in the relationship between Being and Dasein, in which the role of Being is appreciated as ontologically prior to that of Dasein.52 In both of these phases Dasein plays a significant role: while Heidegger I encounters Being in and through his involvement with the world of his concern, for Heidegger II Dasein is the lighting-up-place of Being.

The shift in Heidegger’s thought has brought about significant changes in his perception of the philosophical quest, the task of philosophy and his use of language. Firstly, there is a change in Heidegger’s attitude towards his philosophical quest. Heidegger I is characterized by an attitude that is aggressive in which Dasein thinks of himself as destined to understand the truth of Being.53 It continues in his writings and lectures until 1934. Heidegger II gives up will and self-assertion in the face of Being. In other words, the aim of his entire quest becomes a complete unconditional surrender to the voice of Being. Thus, Heidegger moves from the assertive will of Dasein to that of tranquil detachment.54 

Secondly, there comes about a change in Heidegger’s view of the task of philosophy. Metaphysics, as the core of philosophy, is abandoned; even the fundamental ontology of Being and Time comes to a standstill. The thinking that is characteristic of Heidegger I gives way to a poetic type of thinking. This is much deeper than metaphysics and, according to him, it is no longer, strictly speaking, philosophy.55 Such thinking is not centered on Dasein and moving toward Being, but rather is claimed and favored by Being.56 Dasein is the lighting place of the truth of Being.57 Such thinking is experiential, non-subjective and non-logical in the strict sense. It is a docile meditative questioning filled with the sense of wonder and marvel. It is an attendance to the mystery of Being manifested in history.58