It's interesting to delve into the relationship between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Martin Heidegger, as it's a pivotal point in 20th-century philosophy, particularly within the area of hermeneutics. While Gadamer was a student of Heidegger and profoundly influenced by him, he also developed his own distinct philosophical approach, leading to both significant continuities and notable divergences. Gadamer's encounter with Heidegger began in the early 1920s in Freiburg, where he attended Heidegger's lectures and seminars after being encouraged by Paul Natorp. This marked a significant turning point for Gadamer, challenging his earlier philosophical studies. Heidegger's reputation preceded him, seen by some, like Hannah Arendt, as the "secret king" of German philosophy, captivating a generation with his suggestive lectures even before publishing his major work. Gadamer later followed Heidegger to Marburg, becoming his assistant, and was deeply affected by his radicalism and energy on the podium. The critical gaze of Heidegger even made writing a "torment" for Gadamer for many years, as he felt Heidegger looking over his shoulder. A key point of influence was Heidegger's early work, particularly his project of a "hermeneutics of facticity" developed in the 1920s. This approach saw interpretation not merely as a method for understanding texts or history, but as an inherent way of being for finite human existence ("facticity"). Heidegger transformed Dilthey's methodological hermeneutics into philosophical hermeneutics, viewing understanding as a fundamental mode of being rather than just a method of knowledge acquisition. He argued that "Dasein is as an understanding potentiality-for-Being, which, in its Being, makes an issue of that Being itself". Gadamer adopted this understanding of hermeneutics as a mode of being, not a method, and saw it as a fundamental aspect of understanding. Heidegger's critique of Wilhelm Dilthey also heavily influenced Gadamer. Dilthey had aimed to establish the human sciences on a solid foundation using hermeneutics as a methodology. However, Heidegger reproached Dilthey for not adequately asking the question of the reality of life, seeing the fundamental thrust of Dilthey's work as ontological rather than merely epistemological, despite Dilthey's starting point in historical knowledge. Heidegger challenged Dilthey's aim for a standpoint-free objectivity in historical research, arguing that interpretation is inseparable from factical life and cannot be purged of its inherent perspective. Gadamer's correction of Dilthey, which aimed to ground the human sciences and historical understanding, directly reflects and expands upon Heidegger's critique and approach to facticity. Gadamer's focus on the reality of history and his approach to Dilthey through an ontological lens, rather than a purely epistemological one, distinctly echoes Heidegger's early engagement with Dilthey. Gadamer himself often described his philosophical hermeneutics as a "transposition" or "translation" of Heidegger's thought into the sphere of the human sciences. He explicitly stated this in his correspondence with Leo Strauss, calling it a "transposition of Heidegger into the academic medium, Dilthey instead of Nietzsche". He saw his work as drawing consequences for the human sciences from Heidegger's concept of the circular structure of understanding derived from the temporality of Dasein. However, despite acknowledging this deep indebtedness and presenting himself as a faithful disciple, Gadamer also introduced "essential alterations" to Heidegger's views. These alterations amount to what some scholars see as a "silent turn" against his teacher, a critique and correction of Heidegger's thought. One significant point of divergence lies in the scope of their projects. While Heidegger developed a _fundamental_ ontology, approaching the reality of life in general terms (like Dasein's "today" and "world"), Gadamer's correction of Dilthey takes place through a _regional_ ontology, focusing on specific terms like "history" and the "objective spirit" (tradition constituted by language, customs, etc.). Gadamer aimed to uncover tradition as the substance of historical life and the ground of historical understanding, much like Heidegger delved into factical life to show that understanding cannot be separated from it. Gadamer's critique of the distinction between "primary" existential-ontological understanding and "derivative" historical or existentiallontical understanding is another key divergence. While Heidegger proposed this differentiation, Gadamer argues that historical understanding, as he describes it, fulfills the basic functions attributed by Heidegger to the existential-ontological kind. Gadamer's analysis of _phronesis_ (practical wisdom) in Aristotle's ethics is used to show that historical understanding has an existential-ontological thrust, leading to _aletheia_ (disclosure of truth) regarding what it means to be, thus transferring this thrust to his own concept of understanding. Crucially, Gadamer criticizes Heidegger's marginal treatment of the "other". In _Being and Time_, the other is often discussed in terms of "being-with" (Mit-sein), but Gadamer finds this approach, viewing the other as merely an impersonal Dasein like any other, to be a fundamental shortcoming and a misunderstanding of the other. For Gadamer, understanding is inherently dialogical, a "to-and-fro of question and answer between and I and Thou". He argues that the other is not merely a reflection of the self but a condition for the very possibility of questioning and thinking. This emphasis on the other and dialogue is seen as a correction of Heidegger's view of understanding, which was initially presented as a comportment of a solitary Dasein. Gadamer posits that tradition itself can fulfill the role of the "Thou," conditioning understanding and making thought possible. Gadamer also made the controversial claim that his philosophical hermeneutics "legitimates" and "paves the way" for Heidegger's later thought. He suggested that Heidegger's later engagement with the question of being could only be understood in light of Gadamer's concept of interpretation. He saw his work clarifying ambiguities in Heidegger's later reflections on language and its relation to being/world. However, even on the theme of language, Gadamer introduces a difference. While both saw language as dialogue, for the later Heidegger, this dialogue was language dialoguing with itself, independent of human speaking; for Gadamer, it is a dialogue between language and human speaking, a reciprocal relationship. Further differences emerge in their broader philosophical orientations. Gadamer does not share Heidegger's radical disquiet, existential concerns, or striving for authenticity. Heidegger's analytic of Dasein, with its "transcendental" residue, is seen as foreign to Gadamer. Gadamer explicitly campaigned for a rehabilitation of humanistic concepts, a stance Heidegger found naive. Gadamer's hermeneutics, unlike Heidegger's fundamental ontology, makes no claim to found any ontology today. Gadamer also explores philosophical paths different from Heidegger's way of overcoming metaphysics, such as the paradigm of play, and finds unexpected convergence with thinkers like Wittgenstein on the dialogical nature of language. Despite these differences, the deep connection remains. Gadamer's work is often seen as a phenomenological revival of Greek philosophy, which is connected to Heidegger's influential interpretations of figures like Aristotle. Both thinkers engage with the history of philosophy, including figures like Plato and Hegel, albeit with different interpretations. The debate over the extent of Gadamer's break from Heidegger continues in the literature, with some arguing their projects remain parallel, while others see Gadamer as having surpassed his teacher. In essence, Gadamer received the impulse for his philosophical hermeneutics from Heidegger, adopting his view of understanding as a mode of being and utilizing his critique of Dilthey. However, in translating Heidegger's project into the sphere of the human sciences, Gadamer refined and altered key aspects, particularly emphasizing the dialogical nature of understanding rooted in the encounter with the other and tradition, thereby establishing his own distinct and influential position in the history of hermeneutics. Further ideas to explore regarding this complex relationship could include examining the specific interpretations of figures like Plato and Aristotle by both thinkers, analyzing the role of the concept of "truth" in their respective hermeneutics, or delving deeper into the critical reception of their work and how scholars continue to map the similarities and differences between them. Exploring the influence of other key figures like Husserl on both Heidegger and Gadamer could also provide additional context. Let's delve into the key figures and intellectual traditions that significantly shaped the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, a central figure in 20th-century thought. Examining these influences can help provide a more surface-level understanding of the complex tapestry of his ideas and points to some fascinating areas you might want to explore further. One major thread running through the sources is the profound, and often critical, relationship Heidegger had with the history of Western philosophy. **Classical and Ancient Philosophy:** - Heidegger was significantly influenced by the **pre-Socratic and Socratic Greek thinkers**, particularly **Aristotle**. Sources mention that the study of Aristotle was a key factor in the hermeneutic change and rejection of Husserl's transcendental ego in Heidegger's early work. His lectures and seminars in the 1920s often focused on Aristotle's texts. Specifically, his study of Book 6 of Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_, dealing with concepts like _phronesis_ (practical wisdom), was important. While some sources note that Heidegger's interest leaned towards _sophia_ (theoretical wisdom) in contrast to Gadamer's focus on _phronesis_, his engagement with Aristotle is clearly fundamental to his thought. You might explore further how Heidegger reinterpreted Greek concepts to launch his project. **German Idealism and 19th-Century Philosophy:** - The sources highlight the influence of **German idealism**, including **Kant, Hegel, and Schelling**. - **Kant** is mentioned as a significant influence. Heidegger took Kant's doctrine of the primacy of practical reason seriously and saw him as a philosopher to engage with. - **Hegel** is described as a similarly potent influence on various philosophical movements, including hermeneutics. Hegel's philosophy is recognized for introducing many profound concepts found throughout modern thought, such as the spirit of a people, culture, historicism, and alienation. Heidegger himself had immense respect for Hegel's power over language and ability to reveal concealed things. However, despite seeing Hegel anticipate some of his own ideas, Heidegger sharply took issue with him, viewing him as the last and greatest of the Cartesians, a supreme rationalist who dissolved ontology into logic, and an overweening metaphysician. This critical engagement, almost framed as needing to "remove a monstrous obstacle," underscores Hegel's importance as a point of departure and opposition for Heidegger. You could dive deeper into Heidegger's specific critiques of Hegel's conception of time or his view of man as infinite. - **Schelling** was also an influence. Interestingly, the sources note parallels between Heidegger and Schelling, particularly the idea of an "early" and "late" philosopher with esoteric touches and a sense of historic mission. Heidegger's famous question, "Why is there any being at all and not rather nothing?" is noted as a basic question previously raised by Schelling. Exploring Schelling's philosophy might illuminate aspects of Heidegger's development. - **Nietzsche** is presented as another crucial influence. Some sources even suggest that Heidegger's importance lies in having introduced Nietzsche into philosophy, making previously "unacademic" subjects like death, despair, and dread respectable for academic discussion. Heidegger engaged with Nietzsche's ideas, including his critique of the present, and is sometimes described as having selected him among his philosophical "heroes". The source also touches on complex interpretations, such as Derrida's reading of Nietzsche through a Heideggerian lens and attempting to rethink Heidegger's "history of being" hypothesis in gendered terms, suggesting a "gift" aspect of Being that might be seen as feminine. This highlights the depth and complexity of the Heidegger-Nietzsche relationship. - **Kierkegaard** is listed among the philosophers who influenced Heidegger. His existential ideas, particularly on themes like guilt and the self's relation to choice, are echoed in Heidegger's analysis of Dasein and the call of conscience. Like Kierkegaard, Heidegger saw the self as both caller and called, choosing and chosen in its confrontation with its own potentiality-for-Being. Investigating Kierkegaard's influence could shed light on the existential dimensions of _Being and Time_. - **Wilhelm Dilthey** introduced the hermeneutical problem into modern philosophical thought. Dilthey regarded hermeneutics as a methodology for the human sciences, viewing history as a "grand text" [Source not provided for this specific point, but general context supports it]. Heidegger was impressed by Dilthey's attempt to do for history what Kant did for natural sciences and his view of history involving qualitatively distinct periods. However, Heidegger significantly transformed Dilthey's view by arguing that hermeneutics is not merely a method but fundamentally a mode of being. His project of a "hermeneutics of facticity" is seen as a corrective to Dilthey, overcoming Dilthey's shortcomings through fundamental ontology. Gadamer's critique of Dilthey also expands on Heidegger's reproach to Dilthey. Understanding Dilthey's work provides crucial context for appreciating Heidegger's radical shift in hermeneutics. - **Count von Yorck** is mentioned as a figure Heidegger appealed to (via his letters to Dilthey) in _Truth and Method_ to underscore the significance of his thought for hermeneutics and to overcome Dilthey's epistemological paradigm. Yorck's points about the interpreter belonging to what is interpreted and the historicity of life were apparently influential. **Phenomenology:** - Heidegger was a student of **Edmund Husserl**, the founder of phenomenology. He later became Husserl's assistant and dedicated _Being and Time_ to him. Heidegger's work is often seen as an interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology, which inspired later existentialist philosophers. The phenomenological motto "to the things themselves" can be conceived as an indication of the _Seinsfrage_ (question of Being). However, Heidegger's relationship with Husserl evolved, and they later drifted apart. Heidegger's hermeneutic turn and rejection of Husserl's transcendental ego in his early work were influenced by Dilthey, Aristotle, Neo-Kantianism, and his theological education. He came to treat Husserl similarly to Descartes in _Being and Time_, viewing them both as 'possibilities of the being of care'. Husserl's insight into the original inaccessibility of the other person is also noted as an inspiration for later philosophers like Levinas. The transition from Husserl's phenomenology to Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology and then to the ontology of _Being and Time_ is a key development. You might investigate the differences between Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and Heidegger's existential analytic. **Other Philosophical and Intellectual Traditions:** - **Scholasticism** is mentioned as an influence, and some students noted that the intricate terminology and structure of _Being and Time_ reminded them of scholasticism, linking it to Heidegger's originally Catholic background. - Heidegger's relation to **Descartes** is framed primarily as an opposition or an attempt to overcome the Cartesian divide between mind and matter and the isolation of the thinking self. Heidegger argued that Descartes's subjectivism reduces being to what is present and stems from a philosophically misguided "concern for certainty". Despite this critique, engaging with Descartes's foundational role in modern philosophy was clearly crucial for Heidegger's project. - Heidegger was influenced by **Martin Buber**, specifically mentioning Buber's writing on Chuang-tzu when discussing Far Eastern influences. - **Lev Shestov**, a philosopher of the Russian "Silver Age," is mentioned as a great influence on Heidegger. - Heidegger had an interest in **Far Eastern philosophy**, including Taoist and Zen Buddhist texts. Some scholars argue that his attempts to transcend Western metaphysics drew on non-Western intellectual inspirations more than he openly acknowledged, pointing to parallels between his concept of Nothingness and terminology in translations of these texts. Heidegger referred to dialogue with Eastern doctrines in later life. - Beyond philosophers, the sources note that Heidegger later invoked **poets** such as Hölderlin and Rilke as figures he "repeated" or interpreted. He lectured extensively on **Hölderlin**, treating him as a poet writing about the essence of poetry itself, forcing a decision upon the reader. This engagement with poetry became central to his later thought, where he attempted to rescue things from technology and bureaucratic language, seeing a single thing bringing the whole world into play, similar to a painter or poet's perspective. Exploring his reading of poets reveals a different dimension of his influences. - His turn to philosophy, away from his initial study of Catholic theology, was partly inspired by **Brentano**, who is mentioned as potentially inducing him to become a philosopher. In summary, Heidegger's philosophical journey was shaped by a complex engagement with a wide range of historical and contemporary thinkers and traditions. He built upon, critiqued, and transformed the ideas of his predecessors, fundamentally altering the course of philosophical thought and particularly the evolution of hermeneutics. His influences span ancient Greek philosophy, medieval scholasticism, German idealism, 19th-century figures like Nietzsche and Dilthey, contemporary phenomenology (Husserl), existentialist precursors (Kierkegaard, Shestov), and even non-Western thought and poetry.