Safranski on Heidegger. AI

Perplexity

Safranski's book on Heidegger. Give gist, plus some critiques

Rüdiger Safranski's book on Heidegger is Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil (original German: Ein Meister aus Deutschland. Heidegger und seine Zeit, 1994). It offers a comprehensive intellectual biography blending Heidegger's philosophy, personal life, and historical context.

Core Gist

Safranski traces Heidegger's journey from Catholic seminary student to philosophy star in 1920s Germany, influenced by Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, and post-WWI conservatism. Key ideas like Dasein (being-there), anxiety over death, and critique of human reason as encountering "Being" itself are clearly explained and tied to contemporaries. The book highlights Heidegger's Nazi enthusiasm in 1933—seeing Hitler as a break from Plato's cave—while portraying him as a questioner of existence without a fixed moral code.

Key Critiques

Reviewers praise Safranski's evenhandedness, calling it the best Heidegger biography for weaving thought, pettiness, and Nazi lapses without apology or accusation. Some note succinct clarifications of concepts like authenticity make ontology accessible, though his Nazi links remain "darkly unfocused." Critics like Rorty highlight its superiority over prior Nazi-focused works, exposing Heidegger's deceit but emphasizing imaginative power. A few find the final sections glib on episodes like Sartre or Celan, softening personal flaws like Arendt's affair.

Why is the Arendt affair seen as a personal flaw Many commentators see the Arendt–Heidegger affair as a personal flaw because of (a) the power imbalance and manipulation in the original relationship, and (b) her later complicity in rehabilitating Heidegger despite his Nazi record.

Power, age, and manipulation

Heidegger was a 35‑year‑old married professor; Arendt an 18‑year‑old student, which already raises issues of power and consent that look ethically bad even by contemporary academic standards.

Accounts emphasize his deception of both his wife and Arendt, and his inability or unwillingness to treat Arendt as an intellectual equal, wanting “sex and flattery” rather than a genuine partnership.

Biographical work notes Arendt’s extreme emotional dependence and submissiveness to him in those years, which some see as a failure of judgment in someone later celebrated for clear‑eyed political and moral analysis.

Postwar forgiveness and defense

Many scholars are less troubled by the youthful affair than by the fact that Arendt resumed a warm relationship with Heidegger after the war, “forgave him everything,” and helped defend and rehabilitate his reputation.

She publicly minimized or denied the connection between his philosophy and National Socialism, sometimes repeating his self‑exculpating claims about having taken “risks” under Nazism, despite contrary evidence.

Critics argue that this loyalty to a former lover and teacher led her to special pleading inconsistent with the standards she applied to other Nazi functionaries, and therefore counts as a personal–moral blind spot.

Why this matters for her legacy

For detractors, the affair and its aftermath show that Arendt could internalize and excuse elements of the milieu she otherwise dissected—especially in light of Heidegger’s anti‑Semitism and “brownshirt” enthusiasm.

Others reply that focusing on the love story is a distraction, but even sympathetic commentators admit her postwar behavior toward Heidegger exposes tensions between her life and her political‑theoretical commitments.

Such judgmentalism about love between 2 people

Fair point—love between adults isn't typically our business, and retroactive judgmentalism risks anachronism, especially for a 1920s professor-student romance. That said, critiques focus less on consensual passion and more on its long-term ethical fallout tied to Heidegger's politics.

Context Beyond Romance

The affair itself (1924–1928) involved secrecy and imbalance, but Arendt later described it as intellectually formative, crediting Heidegger's influence on her thinking. What draws "judgment" is her postwar defense of him—separating his "profound" ontology from Nazi politics—despite evidence of his anti-Semitism and party enthusiasm, which some see as excusing a mentor over moral consistency. Your prior interest in her precise defense and the Black Notebooks highlights this nuance: she praised his existential insights while acknowledging political failures, yet critics argue loyalty clouded her judgment on his "racial" views.

Why Critics Push Back

Power dynamics: Even then, faculty-student relations raised ethical flags; Heidegger deceived his wife and prioritized his career over Arendt's emotional needs.

Hypocrisy angle: Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem rigor on Nazi collaborators contrasts her leniency toward Heidegger, fueling charges of personal bias. ​

Not just love: It's the rehabilitation—visits, letters, public minimization—that ties personal to political, especially given her Jewish background and his regime role.

Ultimately, separating the philosopher from the man (or lovers) is Heidegger's own challenge, and Arendt's choice reflects human complexity over puritanical standards.