Anna Pia Ruoppo

The publication, first in German, then in the Italian translation, of the volume 60 of the Martin Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe, which is devoted to a Phenomenology of the religious life, reopened the debate on the relationship between his thought and theology. The author reviews an essay by Luca Savarino, which reconstructs Heidegger’s reflection on Christianity from 1916 to 1927 and aims at defining its place in the development of his thought. Mirroring the thesis according to which an ontologization of Aristotelian categories would happen in the existential analytics, the author argues that the ontological project of Sein und Zeit originates from a formalization and subsequent elevation to the ontological plan of some fundamental structures of life which reveal themselves in the Christian experience

[Italiano]: Articolandosi in tre sezioni: l’analitica esistenziale fra neokantismo, fenomenologia ed ermeneutica; etica, prassi, politica a partire da Essere e Tempo; confronti, approfondimenti, prospettive, questo volume collettaneo prova ad offrire un bilancio sull’attualità e inattualità dell’analitica esistenziale a Novata anni dalla pubblicazione di Essere e Tempo ispirandosi ad “un’ermeneutica della Sachlichkeit”. Autori provenienti da diversi contesti presentano l’analitica esistenziale nel contesto storico e teorico della sua prima formulazione, si interrogano sul complesso problema di una possibile prassi o di una possibile etica all’interno dell’ontologia heideggeriana e misurano l’impatto dell’analitica esistenziale su pensatori contemporanei. Ne emerge come, nonostante tutti i problemi e le domande aperte, sia grande «il debito del pensiero contemporaneo verso Heidegger e come sia importante conservare l’eredità del suo pensiero e della tradizione in cui si colloca, al di là di ogni falsa alternativa fra ingenua apologetica e critica radicale» /[English]:Divided into three sections: the existential analytics between neokantism, phenomenology and hermeneutics; ethics, praxis, politics starting from Being and Time; confrontations, deepening, perspectives, this collective volume, inspired by "a hermeneutics of Sachlichkeit", tries to offer a balance on the actuality and unactuality of existential analytics ninety years after publication of Being and Time. Authors from different contexts present the existential analytics in the historical and theoretical context of its first formulation, question the complex problem of a possible praxis or a possible ethics within Heideggerian ontology and measure the impact of existential analytics on contemporary thinkers. It emerges how, despite all the problems and open questions, "the debt of contemporary thought to Heidegger is great and how important it is to preserve the legacy of his thought and the tradition in which it is placed, beyond any false alternative between naive apologetics and radical criticism".

From the 1970es onwards, it becomes a characteristic trait of the Italian reception of Heidegger´s thinking to establish a link between Heidegger and Marx. A systematic reference to Marx is absent from Heidegger´s writing. However, Heidegger refers to Marx in a number of contexts and interprets several of the most prominent traits of Marx’s teaching. The present article establishes a connection between Heidegger and Marx mediated by the concept of alienation. In contrast to Marx, Heidegger sees a possibility to overcome alienation not by means of a political praxis, but through the capacity of poetry to see and to express the Being as a whole

During the Sixties and the Seventies, under the communist re´gime, some Yugoslav scholars grouped around the review «Praxis» made an attempt at connecting the «humanistic» philosophy of Marx and the philosophy of Heidegger. In Heidegger’s conceptions of tecnique and die Kehre, and in his definition of the human essence as temporality, they found a prop for invigorating their critique of the historical materialism, through a return to the free and creative essence of Man. But they were too concerned with the recovery of the centrality of Man, in opposition to official Marxism, so they neglected that the reason why Heidegger located Marx’s thought within the history of Being, understood as metaphysics, was the latter’s very definition of Man’s essence in «humanistic» terms. The author argues that an approach aiming at underlining contacts and divergences between the two thinkers should take a different point of departure, starting from the interpretation of Marx’s philosophy within the perspective of Heidegger’s

Nietzsche’s thought constituted an object of reflection on the part of Heidegger even before becoming for him a symbol for the oblivion of the Being in the context of the history of metaphysics. In quest of a phenomenological method of his own, Heidegger choose Nietzsche as a paradigm of a philosophy paying attention to life and its philosophical manifestations. Within this context Nietzsche became for Heidegger a field of encounter and clash with his first mentor, i. e. Heinrich Rickert. It is well known that in his approach to the “Nietzsche paradigm”, i. e. to the prevailing theme of life in the contemporary spiritual situation, Heidegger followed a different path from Rickert. But the author aims at showing that, in turning himself to Hegel in order to resolve the most difficult problems of his phenomenology of life, Heidegger was originally following the advice given in Rickert’s Philosophie des Lebens “to turn oneself to Hegel more than to Zarathustra” in a situation characterized by the prevalence of the philosophy of life

It is one of the fundamental characteristics of Martin Heidegger’s thought that he proceeds in dialog with other thinkers in the elaboration of his philosophy. Whereas the relevance that the interpretation of Aristotle had for young Heidegger is almost commonplace, it is much less known that before turning to Aristotle, Heidegger had dwelt on Hegel’s thought. It is this passage from “Hegel to Aristotle” that the present paper wishes to analyze. This development from the model of mediation of Hegelian dialectic to that of Aristotelian phronesis therefore defines the possibility and the limits of the ethical-practical dimension of Heidegger’s thought