Correspondence 1949-1975

Martin Heidegger, Ernst Jünger, Timothy Sean Quinn

• Verlag: Rowman & Littlefield International
• Jahr: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781783488773
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Philosophy
• Thema: Phenomenology in Philosophy

Beginning in 1949, the German novelist and essayist Ernst Jünger began a correspondence with the philosopher Martin Heidegger that lasted until Heidegger’s death in 1975. This volume contains the first English translation of their complete correspondence, as well as letters from Heidegger’s wife and son and others referred to in their correspondence. It also contains a translation of Jünger’s essay Across the Line ( Über die Linie ), his contribution to a Festschrift celebrating Heidegger’s sixtieth birthday. Jünger’s and Heidegger’s correspondence is of enormous historical interest, revealing how both men came to understand their cultural roles in post-war Europe. It is valuable as well for showing the emergence of themes pervasive in Heidegger’s post-war thought: his cultural and political pessimism and his concern with the problem of global technology. The correspondence also reveals the evolution of a philosophical friendship between two writers central to twentieth century European thought, and the mutual influence that friendship worked on their writing.

Part One

THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ERNST JÜNGER AND MARTIN HEIDEGGER

Correspondence Between Ernst Jünger and Martin Heidegger

1) Ernst Jünger to Martin Heidegger, (14b) Ravensburg, Wilhelm-Hauff-Strasse 18, 11 June 1949

Dear Herr Professor,

Herr Klett and Dr. Nebel have informed me about their correspondence with you.¹ Although I welcome the plan for a journal and for the editorial committee they have in view, I also understand your reservations, thanks to similarities to my own situation. The fact of a collaboration, or even working in common, seems unobjectionable to me; on the other hand, I regard granting an official status to this common work, either on the title page, or through an advertisement, as a step worth being weighed for a long time, and perhaps reserved for a later stage. I responded in this way to Herr Klett, and have included a copy of my response for you. I think my brother shares this opinion. We all find ourselves in a situation where it is fitting to offer to the polemic only material that is absolutely necessary. In any case, things must be considered carefully, since much depends on them. It is necessary to give preference to points of view that favor the work of the collaborator.

I hope that you are enjoying this lovely season from your high locale. For my part, I am content with having moved to Ravensburg, where I can work well. In addition, leaving the English zone for the French, one has the feeling of entering into the sphere of a cultivated nation, in spite of all the cosmetic deficiencies that are inevitably tied up with an occupation.

With best wishes

Yours,

E. J.

[the following letter was included by Ernst Jünger]

Ernst Jünger (14b) Ravensburg, Wilhelm-Hauff-Strasse 18, 11 June 1949

Dear Herr Klett,

I gratefully received your kind letter of 7 June. I am therefore ready for our trip into streams of Mexican colors, and I ask you to proceed with all necessary preparations with Dr. Frederking.² Naturally, it will be necessary to avoid turning the thing into a folk festival. The great room of Pastor Gestrich seems to me entirely suitable for the experience.

I am grateful for the paper; the most practical format for me would be that of the sheet on which I now write.

Dr. Nebel kept me posted about your correspondence with Professor Heidegger. My brother Friedrich Georg, who actually stayed in Hirschberg at the Countess Podewils’s, has yet to give me a definitive answer.³ The reservations Professor Heidegger expresses are not unfounded; they tally in part with mine, which I’ve explained to you and to Dr. Nebel. Heidegger and I have found ourselves for the past four years at the center of an intense polemic, and have indeed survived it; but it is important that we in no way offer a larger target to our adversaries. I believe that Professor Heidegger has as little to fear from a substantial statement as do I, but that he must dispel any suspicion of political action. The publication of a journal would however be considered in a political light, whether we intend it or not—here as well as abroad. I would still prefer then, that Dr. Nebel assume sole editorial responsibility and that we however assist by collaborating with him, which would also please my brother. The effect remains the same, but this reduces the possibilities for attack. If each of the principal collaborators declared themselves prepared to give a contribution to the first number, the launch would be assured, and the journal would receive a definite look. There would always be time to institute a closer collaboration once the necessary authority had been assured of the quality of the magazine and its audience. Indeed, I assume a stream of new and even as yet unknown collaborators. This is the position in which I find myself, and which requires that the right thing be a calm and precise action. I suggest then that you initially approach the other gentlemen from the point of view of a permanent collaboration, based solely on regular participation. For my part, I am entirely prepared. Hopefully, the common work will drive further efforts.

So much in brief. I do hope to see you next month. Concerning Herr Hiller, more time is needed.⁴ Perhaps one day you could command Nebel like a new Odysseus against this Thersites.⁵ I hold Hiller as one of those principally responsible for the Jewish pogroms; it was he who furnished material for the Stürmer by besmirching everything German for decades. Hiller and Streicher, they are two sides of the same coin, and I hold it superfluous for you to answer such men with arguments.⁶

With best wishes,

Yours,

E. J.

2) Martin Heidegger to Ernst Jünger, Freiburgin-Breslau, 23 June 1949

Dear Herr Jünger,

I thank you for your letter that aligns with my own reflections. But first I must ask that you drop the “Professor.”

I still recall well the location of the path on which we spoke last autumn about the extreme danger that faces those who try today to hold onto what is essential; that to endure solitude is not an escape, but the highest freedom.

Yet the natural urge to bring help immediately, to offer support and guidance, moves us to attempt things that turn out to be wrong after more rigorous reflection.

Since Herr Klett and Dr. Nebel came to see me, not a day passes when I do not reflect on the project. The will to discover and to make visible in an original way what is authentic in the western tradition, to gather together those who wait, to strengthen those who seek, is enchanting. But, as I see clearly today, all this goes down the path of a relapse into the worn-out form of the journal. The tyranny of public opinion cannot be broken within it. The joint appearance of our names, even under the simple form of a regular collaboration, would be transformed into a political event ...