John, thank you very much for posting this essay. I felt an affinity for Heidegger when I was studying philosophy in college, and then was introduced to Taoism through an art history class at art school. I fell in love with it, and it’s shaped my life and art ever since.
Really glad I came across this article — read all 6,000 words.
The practice of actually dwelling with, rather than reflexively objectifying, is something I struggle to do as a reader and writer here on this platform. (Any digital platform, really.)
I am deeply aware of how the infinite scroll facilitates a single-use approach to whatever and whomever I encounter here (a pop up ad has the same weight as a 6,000 word essay about Heidegger — or, for that matter, a headline about a hurricane about to make landfall); yet I cannot deny that it has become one of my default settings. This device through which I am communicating these thoughts continually shapes my attention in ways that my wiser self knows to be hollow, adolescent, distinctly un-skillful, and at odds with what life is really about.
So, question for you, dear author: how do you manage this? I’m of course not expecting a succinct or direct answer (or an answer at all; in fact, the negative space might be more poignant). In writing this now, I’m remembering how digression itself, the unproductive eddies and side-currents that emerge through contemplating and responding to another’s thought, can be a kind of remedy itself.
Also, I’m sorry to drop this in as it is its own topic deserving its own discussion: but Heidegger was a Nazi. Deserves at least a footnote.
Ooh, I love the idea of pocketbooks. Especially for a client relationship where you can customize what’s in there. I’ve found that kind physical distillation to be really helpful when I’ve worked with a life coach. (Btw, your website is great. Love how you break down why and how to hire a philosopher).
Thanks for clarifying your orientation toward the Nazism question, I’m looking forward to reading your other posts on Heidegger. The interesting question to me is “what makes such a brilliant thinker like Heidegger accept and promote such a toxic political movement?” Pondering that can help us see the ways that we ourselves are susceptible to evil — especially at the moment we think we are doing the most good.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Kip. Good to hear it resonated.
To answer your question, something I’ve been putting together most recently is a little trilogy of 4 × 6 pocketbooks. One of them being a slightly extended and amended version of this essay. In the spirit of Heidegger’s view of “things” gathering a world, it’s nice to be able to send clients, friends, etc., an actual physical book with a handwritten note. Substack is a nice medium, but the ability to dwell and think with something hits different when it’s a physical thing rather than a hyperlink to something on a screen. It definitely opens up a deeper conversation.
I agree that him being a Nazi is problematic, and I’ve addressed it elsewhere as it’s often a comment. Some people think it just makes him off-limits, full stop. But I think just leaving it at that ends up being a refusal to think. It’s impossible to understand twentieth-century continental philosophy without coming to terms with his work. I think you have to read him closely enough that his Nazism becomes a problem inside the philosophy, rather than an excuse to avoid the philosophy altogether.
The funniest part of this comparison is that Heidegger spent decades inventing an entirely new vocabulary in German just to arrive somewhere Taoist monks reached without needing a single made-up compound word. Different toolkits, same discovery: that forcing something into being is a kind of violence against it, and the world reveals itself more honestly the less you grab at it. Where the two genuinely part ways is the mood — Taoism seems to have made peace with this a long time ago, while Heidegger sounds like he's wrestling something to the ground the entire time he's trying to describe letting go. Still ends up in the same clearing, just sweatier getting there.
Really thoughtful piece - thank you for sharing this! Philosophy, and particularly the teachings of Tao, has been a central interest of mine for a long time. It’s always refreshing to find perspectives that engage so deeply with these ideas. I actually recently put together a book exploring my own interpretation of the Tao and its practical role in daily life. Looking forward to reading more of your work!
Eastern thought has influenced major western philosophers since at least David Hume (via Ippolito Desideri, a Jesuit who actually walked into Tibet in the early 18th century!), so Heidegger comes from a tradition already beginning to (slowly) soak itself in both East and West. At the same time Heidegger, of all people, is capable of "independent" _original thinking_, and to thereby touch that which is expressed variously in different traditions and schools. How I like to see this kind of process:
— you're familiar with A
— you come across B, study it a bit, and say B is like A.
— you haven't learned anything.
— but if you see B, and see that A is like B, then you've learned something new!
An alternative is so see both A and B as attempts at words about "the same 'thing'", or as EFFing attempts to eff the ineffable. Then your allegiance, your stance, is not to A's and B's but to... where and how you're actually standing. A calls it "tao", B calls it "Ereignis" (a most fascinating term from later Heidegger, with meanings such as event, deepening into arrival, knowing fullness, "That"?).
Two other interesting relationships are 1) Heidegger and Dogen (both into "being-time", with (what was for me) a phenomenology/meditation practice bridge), and 2) "Care is the Being of Dasein" and the buddhist notion of sentient being (inextricable intelligence (prajna) and compassion (karuna)), very relevant for these AI times.
Nice work. I've been dwelling with this for 2 days now. It works as a good introduction to both Heidegger and Taoism, but it also gently urges the reader to take them seriously and to make space amd step back.
The acting without acting is the hardest thing for me to understand and enact. Going with the flow yet also willing where to go is a difficult balance to maintain.
Thanks, William. If you want to explore further, this paper by Eric Nelson on the links between Heidegger and Taoism is useful: https://philpapers.org/archive/NELFPC.pdf
This is a great quick-ish overview of some dense Heidegger-ese.
I can't speak to how much Taoism and Eastern thinking in general influenced him or on what timeline, though I'd be surprised to see that influence prior to his "Turning" around 1930. That's when it apparently clicked with him that the clearing is _intrinsically hidden_, with all the paradoxes and contradictions implied. The works after that move away from the more Aristotelian-flavored work of the 1920s into the historical and mystical poetic concerns of the later works. It wouldn't surprise me if Eastern influence nudged him in that direction, given what he says about physis and aletheia by the mid 30s, in e.g. Introduction to Metaphysics
He was definitely influenced by eastern thought well before then, even well before he wrote Being and Time which came out in 1927. For example, it’s been said that Heidegger's concept of Dasein was inspired by Okakura Kakuzo's concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (being in the world) which is in The Book of Tea. Apparently Heidegger was given a copy in 1919 by one of his students.
That doesn't surprise me. I always think of early Heidegger as under the influence of Christianity and the medieval scholastics, but it's evident he was a wide-ranging thinker since the beginning.
The bridge between Heidegger and Taoism is, I think, Meister Eckhart. Heidegger engaged with Eckhart from fairly early in his career. 'Gelassenheit' is an Eckhartian coinage. Similar to wu-wei is Eckhart's 'life lived without why'. It is worth looking into, if you haven't already. For example, "Eckhart, Heidegger, and the Imperative of Releasement" by Ian Alexander Moore.
Otherwise, yes, to this line of thinking! Thank you!
Thanks Jack. I’ve never done a full deep dive into Meister Eckhart. Just a surface reading mainly via Schopenhauer and Erich Fromm. The bridge between H and the Tao makes sense as I’ve seen him compared to some aspects of Buddhism too. I will check out Moore’s book, thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks Charlotte. Lovely to hear it was useful (although Heidegger would be rolling in his grave saying just let it be, it doesn’t need to be useful!).
John, thank you very much for posting this essay. I felt an affinity for Heidegger when I was studying philosophy in college, and then was introduced to Taoism through an art history class at art school. I fell in love with it, and it’s shaped my life and art ever since.
Thanks Bob. They feel like an ever more appropriate combo. Would love to see some of your Tao-shaped art if it’s viewable anywhere?
Hi John, thank you. You can find my work at: www.robertschatz.com
My recent exhibit is viewable there under “Installation Views”.
Amazing. Just DM’d you.
Thank you for this comprehensive and enlightening read. I had not put the 2 together before and now i don’t think I can unsee it.
Thanks Frank, good to hear it resonated.
I did. I am new here but not the thoughts. I appreciate being able to find material to help me stretch myself.
Really glad I came across this article — read all 6,000 words.
The practice of actually dwelling with, rather than reflexively objectifying, is something I struggle to do as a reader and writer here on this platform. (Any digital platform, really.)
I am deeply aware of how the infinite scroll facilitates a single-use approach to whatever and whomever I encounter here (a pop up ad has the same weight as a 6,000 word essay about Heidegger — or, for that matter, a headline about a hurricane about to make landfall); yet I cannot deny that it has become one of my default settings. This device through which I am communicating these thoughts continually shapes my attention in ways that my wiser self knows to be hollow, adolescent, distinctly un-skillful, and at odds with what life is really about.
So, question for you, dear author: how do you manage this? I’m of course not expecting a succinct or direct answer (or an answer at all; in fact, the negative space might be more poignant). In writing this now, I’m remembering how digression itself, the unproductive eddies and side-currents that emerge through contemplating and responding to another’s thought, can be a kind of remedy itself.
Also, I’m sorry to drop this in as it is its own topic deserving its own discussion: but Heidegger was a Nazi. Deserves at least a footnote.
Ooh, I love the idea of pocketbooks. Especially for a client relationship where you can customize what’s in there. I’ve found that kind physical distillation to be really helpful when I’ve worked with a life coach. (Btw, your website is great. Love how you break down why and how to hire a philosopher).
Thanks for clarifying your orientation toward the Nazism question, I’m looking forward to reading your other posts on Heidegger. The interesting question to me is “what makes such a brilliant thinker like Heidegger accept and promote such a toxic political movement?” Pondering that can help us see the ways that we ourselves are susceptible to evil — especially at the moment we think we are doing the most good.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Kip. Good to hear it resonated.
To answer your question, something I’ve been putting together most recently is a little trilogy of 4 × 6 pocketbooks. One of them being a slightly extended and amended version of this essay. In the spirit of Heidegger’s view of “things” gathering a world, it’s nice to be able to send clients, friends, etc., an actual physical book with a handwritten note. Substack is a nice medium, but the ability to dwell and think with something hits different when it’s a physical thing rather than a hyperlink to something on a screen. It definitely opens up a deeper conversation.
I agree that him being a Nazi is problematic, and I’ve addressed it elsewhere as it’s often a comment. Some people think it just makes him off-limits, full stop. But I think just leaving it at that ends up being a refusal to think. It’s impossible to understand twentieth-century continental philosophy without coming to terms with his work. I think you have to read him closely enough that his Nazism becomes a problem inside the philosophy, rather than an excuse to avoid the philosophy altogether.
For both Heidegger and Taoism, truth is therefore less like owning the correct map and more like learning how to walk...
https://substack.com/@vesselism101/note/p-219338386?r=19qbla&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
I liked every word—more than just liking them, I feel compelled to live by them. Note: I read all 6,000 words.
Great effort Helena, nice to hear it resonated.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
The funniest part of this comparison is that Heidegger spent decades inventing an entirely new vocabulary in German just to arrive somewhere Taoist monks reached without needing a single made-up compound word. Different toolkits, same discovery: that forcing something into being is a kind of violence against it, and the world reveals itself more honestly the less you grab at it. Where the two genuinely part ways is the mood — Taoism seems to have made peace with this a long time ago, while Heidegger sounds like he's wrestling something to the ground the entire time he's trying to describe letting go. Still ends up in the same clearing, just sweatier getting there.
Thank goodness I read various dao de Ching renderings before I ever heard of Heidegger, except in that month python song....
Really thoughtful piece - thank you for sharing this! Philosophy, and particularly the teachings of Tao, has been a central interest of mine for a long time. It’s always refreshing to find perspectives that engage so deeply with these ideas. I actually recently put together a book exploring my own interpretation of the Tao and its practical role in daily life. Looking forward to reading more of your work!
Eastern thought has influenced major western philosophers since at least David Hume (via Ippolito Desideri, a Jesuit who actually walked into Tibet in the early 18th century!), so Heidegger comes from a tradition already beginning to (slowly) soak itself in both East and West. At the same time Heidegger, of all people, is capable of "independent" _original thinking_, and to thereby touch that which is expressed variously in different traditions and schools. How I like to see this kind of process:
— you're familiar with A
— you come across B, study it a bit, and say B is like A.
— you haven't learned anything.
— but if you see B, and see that A is like B, then you've learned something new!
An alternative is so see both A and B as attempts at words about "the same 'thing'", or as EFFing attempts to eff the ineffable. Then your allegiance, your stance, is not to A's and B's but to... where and how you're actually standing. A calls it "tao", B calls it "Ereignis" (a most fascinating term from later Heidegger, with meanings such as event, deepening into arrival, knowing fullness, "That"?).
Two other interesting relationships are 1) Heidegger and Dogen (both into "being-time", with (what was for me) a phenomenology/meditation practice bridge), and 2) "Care is the Being of Dasein" and the buddhist notion of sentient being (inextricable intelligence (prajna) and compassion (karuna)), very relevant for these AI times.
Wow! Great article, thanks!
Thanks Dylan, good to hear it was useful.
Thank you!
Nice work. I've been dwelling with this for 2 days now. It works as a good introduction to both Heidegger and Taoism, but it also gently urges the reader to take them seriously and to make space amd step back.
The acting without acting is the hardest thing for me to understand and enact. Going with the flow yet also willing where to go is a difficult balance to maintain.
I have thought about Thomas Kuhn as another Taoist philosopher that you might find interesting. https://substack.com/@williambausman719579/p-180302194
People have made many comparisons between Heidegger and Kuhn but I never knew Heidegger well enough to have an opinion.
Thanks, William. If you want to explore further, this paper by Eric Nelson on the links between Heidegger and Taoism is useful: https://philpapers.org/archive/NELFPC.pdf
This is a great quick-ish overview of some dense Heidegger-ese.
I can't speak to how much Taoism and Eastern thinking in general influenced him or on what timeline, though I'd be surprised to see that influence prior to his "Turning" around 1930. That's when it apparently clicked with him that the clearing is _intrinsically hidden_, with all the paradoxes and contradictions implied. The works after that move away from the more Aristotelian-flavored work of the 1920s into the historical and mystical poetic concerns of the later works. It wouldn't surprise me if Eastern influence nudged him in that direction, given what he says about physis and aletheia by the mid 30s, in e.g. Introduction to Metaphysics
He was definitely influenced by eastern thought well before then, even well before he wrote Being and Time which came out in 1927. For example, it’s been said that Heidegger's concept of Dasein was inspired by Okakura Kakuzo's concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (being in the world) which is in The Book of Tea. Apparently Heidegger was given a copy in 1919 by one of his students.
That doesn't surprise me. I always think of early Heidegger as under the influence of Christianity and the medieval scholastics, but it's evident he was a wide-ranging thinker since the beginning.
The bridge between Heidegger and Taoism is, I think, Meister Eckhart. Heidegger engaged with Eckhart from fairly early in his career. 'Gelassenheit' is an Eckhartian coinage. Similar to wu-wei is Eckhart's 'life lived without why'. It is worth looking into, if you haven't already. For example, "Eckhart, Heidegger, and the Imperative of Releasement" by Ian Alexander Moore.
Otherwise, yes, to this line of thinking! Thank you!
Thanks Jack. I’ve never done a full deep dive into Meister Eckhart. Just a surface reading mainly via Schopenhauer and Erich Fromm. The bridge between H and the Tao makes sense as I’ve seen him compared to some aspects of Buddhism too. I will check out Moore’s book, thanks for the recommendation.
Thank you for your excellent article!
And in case you or anyone is interested, here is one of Eckhart’s more famous sermons:
https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MeisterEckhartThePoorMan.pdf
This is absolutely brilliant! Thank you for this analytical take 👏
Thanks Charlotte. Lovely to hear it was useful (although Heidegger would be rolling in his grave saying just let it be, it doesn’t need to be useful!).