Везде
Two views on the poetry of F. Hölderlin: M. Heidegger and Y.E. Golosovker
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Two views on the poetry of F. Hölderlin: M. Heidegger and Y.E. Golosovker
Annotation
PII
S2072-07260000616-6-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Daniil Morozov 
Edition
Volume 13 Issue 2
Pages
97-111
Abstract
At approximately the same time (i.e. in 1920-s and 1930-s), two contemporaries, M. Hei­degger and Y.E. Golosovker, turned their attention to the poetry of F. Hölderlin. This arti­cle discusses their views on the writings of the German poet. Despite the fact that no di­rect intellectual contacts were found between the thinkers, Hölderlin’s poetry becomes the point of intersection of their interests, making it possible to identify the “parallels” without contact. Through Heidegger’s scheme (gods, poet, people) and the three dialec­tics of Golosovker (healing-sacrifice-transformation) the article shows the similarities and fundamental differences in their interpretation of Hölderlin as well as the many ways in which their interpretations complement each other. The article analyzes the concept of “madness” as it was understood by each thinker. According to Golosovker, the cause of madness is “honest burghers” (the people) – contemporaries of the poet; Heidegger, on the other hand, saw the source of the disease in the “excessive brightness of the light” and “hints of the gods”, which had been “revealed” to Hölderlin. The interpretation of “na­ture” in Hölderlin’s poetry requires special attention: the two thinkers offer different optics through which the poet appears as a proponent of an aesthetic panpsychism or a special kind of ontology. In their exploration of Hölderlin, the two philosophers draw important conclusions about modernity as a kind of intermediate era. They call it “impov­erished time” or a period between “the first and second harmonies”. Heidegger and Golosovker offer two solutions to the problem of modernity. In each of the solutions, the poet occupies the key position. The differences in the interpretations largely reflect the biographies of both thinkers and the historical context, as discussed in the final part. Not only an understanding of modernity, but also a hope or lack thereof with respect to the future is an important topic in the potential Russian-European dialogue between two contemporaries about Hölderlin’s poetry.
Keywords
Golosovker, Heidegger, Hölderlin, poetry, madness, German romanticism, Russian philosophy
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
582
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Golosovker, Y.E. Izbrannoe. Logika mifa [Collected works. The logic of myth]. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives Publ., 2010. 496 pp. (In Russian)
    2. 

  2. Heidegger, M. “‘Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten’: Spiegel-Gespräch mit Martin Heidegger am 23. September 1966”, Spiegel, 1976, Bd. 30, Nr. 23, 31. Mai, S. 193‒219.
    3. 

  3. Heidegger, M. Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 65: Beiträge zur Philosophie. Frankfurt a/M.: Vittorio Klos­termann, 1989. 513 S.
    4. 

  4. Heidegger, M. Vremya i bytie: Stat’i i vystupleniya [Time and being: Articles and speeches], trans. by V.V. Bibikhin. Moscow: Respublika Publ., 1993. 447 pp. (In Russian)
    5. 

  5. Heidegger, M. Raz”yasneniya k poezii Gel’derlina [Clarification to Hölderlin’s Poetry], trans. by G.B. Notkin. St. Petersburg: Academic Project Publ., 2003. 320 pp. (In Russian)
    6. 

  6. Heidegger, M. “Nuzhny li poety?” [Do poets need?], in: M. Heidegger, O poetakh i poezii: Gel’derlin. Ril’ke. Trakl’ [About poets and poetry: Hölderlin. Rilke. Trakl], trans. by N. Boldyrev. Moscow: Vodolei Publ., 2017, pp. 25‒84. (In Russian)
    7. 

  7. Hölderlin, F. “Hyperion”, trans. by Y.E. Golosovker. RGALI f. 613 op. 9 ed. khr. 1301. (In Russian)
    8. 

  8. Hölderlin, F. Smert’ Empedokla, tragediya [Death of Empedocles, tragedy], trans. by Y.E. Golo­sovkera. Moscow; Leningrad: Academia Publ., 1931. 135 pp. (In Russian)
    9. 

  9. Konacheva, S.A. “Religioznye fenomeny v perspektive voprosa o bytii: khaideggerovskaya in­terpretatsiya poezii Gel’derlina kak fenomenologiya svyashchennogo” [Religious Phe­nomena in the Perspective of the Question of Being: Heidegger's Interpretation of Höl­derlin’s poetry as a Phenomenology of the Sacred], Logos, 2010, No. 5 (78), pp. 43‒54. (In Russian)
    10. 

  10. Kreuzer, J. (Hrsg.) Hölderlin-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung. Stuttgart; Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler, 2011. 558 S.
    11. 

  11. Martin, B. Hölderlin und Heidegger: Wege und Irrwege. München; Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber, 2016. 424 S.
    12. 

  12. Mayackii, M. “Dolgoe ozhidanie verdikta” [Long-Awaited Verdict], Logos, 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 1‒13. (In Russian)
    13. 

  13. Rashkovskii, E.B. & Braginskaya, N.V. (eds.) Yakov Emmanuilovich Golosovker. Moscow: Po­litical encyclopedia Publ., 2017. 318 pp. (In Russian)
    14. 

  14. Safranski, R. Heidegger: germanskii master i ego vremya [Heidegger: the German Master and his Time], trans. by T.A. Baskakova and V.A. Brun-Tsekhovoi, 2 ed. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya Publ., 2005. 633 pp. (In Russian)
    15. 

  15. Safronova, N.D. “M. Khaidegger kak tolkovatel’ poezii Fr. Gel’derlina: v poiskakh ‘sochi­nennogo’” [M. Heidegger as an interpreter of poetry Fr. Hölderlin: In Search of the ‘Writ­ten’], Voprosy filosofii, 2018, No. 4, pp. 44‒58. (In Russian)
    16. 

  16. Safronova, N.D. Istolkovanie poezii Fridriha Gyol'derlina v pozdnej filosofii Martina Hajdeg­gera [The interpretation of Friedrich Hölderlin’s poetry in the later philosophy of Martin Heidegger], Diss. Moscow, 2019. 295 pp. (In Russian)
    17.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate