One of the most conceptually challenging courses I took before starting graduate studies was a course I took at the University of Iowa, taught by Professor David Stern, on Heidegger. It is one of the only courses in the department that seriously considers the ideas of “continental” philosophers. Given this, it was difficult for me to be charitable towards views so radically different from my own.
At first, I really struggled to read Heidegger’s Being and Time. Heidegger often creates his own terminology (e.g., Dasein) to better capture his ideas, he uses popular expressions in unconventional ways, and he seems to contradict himself at several points in the later sections. I believed Heidegger’s philosophy was so ambiguous that it did not contribute anything to our understanding of the world. I was ready to drop the course entirely. But I changed my approach.
Until this point, I came in with objections or questions that I was sure would topple Heidegger’s project (they did not). With no such luck, I came just to listen to what other people thought of the reading. I quickly found that on days when I could just soak in what others thought, I got a better grasp of the material. Here, I learned that my dismissal of Heidegger’s philosophy was rash, a decision made too quickly and with too little charitability towards the position Heidegger was approaching the issues from. Perhaps because other students were having similar experiences reading Heidegger, Professor Stern relied a lot on in-class discussion to clarify the material. This was, for me, the most useful part of the course.
Unlike other courses I’d taken in the philosophy department, this course allowed us to learn a lot about (1) translating philosophy to English and (2) the historical context surrounding the writer and how this context had a direct impact on the text. We read Rüdiger Safranski’s biography of Heidegger which illuminated both of these issues. I would recommend it to anyone also interested in gaining a greater understanding of Heidegger’s approach to philosophy.
Ultimately, my views on Heidegger’s philosophy did not change all that much. However, I did learn to be a more patient scholar and academic altogether. I now see that the frustrations I felt reading Heidegger are not unique to him or his philosophy, nor do they alone doom his project. Professional philosophers across traditions have struggled with clarity and conciseness. Whereas before this course began, I might have dismissed another philosopher’s viewpoint outright, I now take the time to read through the entire position, paying special attention to how they respond to objections, and it has changed the way that I learn and study philosophy.
This skill has been especially helpful in grading student papers. As a TA, sometimes you come across student submissions that are not entirely clear or seem misguided. Oftentimes, however, students will get to the ideas they are really trying to express. It just takes a little patience. Next semester, I’m taking another course taught by Professor Stern on Wittgenstein. Hopefully, my lesson in patience will continue with the Tractatus.
Casey Scott
Casey Scott is a graduate student at the University of Iowa. He is interested in Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, AI, and Metaethics. You can contact him at casey-scott@uiowa.edu or visit his website for more information.
