Though Martin Heidegger is focused on approaching the abstractions of being through the lens of poetic language, I would like to argue that the Heideggerian approach of the idea of poetry conflicts with poetry as a form of art—in fact, it could be said that Heidegger trades the deeper appreciation of the work of art for the appreciation of being (wherein the Heideggerian approach is opposed to interpretation through the resemblance of ideas (Basic Writings, 162))—in this sense, I believe that poetry is not the perfect Heideggerian channel in his methodology to undo his “forgetting-of-being”. In this sense, Heidegger’s goal is merely to contemplate the prima facie effects of poetry (wherein poetry induces a particular sensation in the self when it is first read), and not to completely find the essence of poetry in itself. This is because poetry, like all literature, is meant to be subject to a form of interpretation, and consequently it must be assimilated into a structure of themes in order for it to be construed. Thus, I would like to use Friedrich Hölderlin’s “Der Ister” in order to demonstrate the problems of the Heideggerian approach of poetry. The reason that I have chosen this poem is the fact it is created by Heidegger’s own favorite poet (who he mentions in The Origin of the Work of Art; the poem itself has also been mentioned in Heidegger’s lecture course “Hölderlin’s Hymn “Der Ister””). In addition, the poem is renowned for its contribution to Romanticism, which seems to be the genre that resonates with Heidegger the most due to the the genre’s appeal to the mystery of being in a natural state.
I would first like to begin by further describing the contemporary metaphysical view of poetry. As Nietzsche states in “Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense”, it is impossible for language to approach the thing-in-itself (Philosophy and Truth, 83); in Heideggerian terms, “the thing vanishes” because interpretations are an “inordinate attempt to bring it into the greatest possible proximity to us” (Basic Writings, 152). In this sense, language, as a connective tool, is focused mainly on the processes of things through connective ideas, so it cannot be fully utilized in the paradigm of a thing-ontology. However, language is the ultimate device in its ability to create resemblances of the thing-in-itself: in the empiricist view, we use language to formulate ideas through sense-impressions (which is essentially the definition of empiricism in itself). As a result, poetry, like all literature, is limited to resemblances without being able to touch the forms of truth and being. But, this limitation brings about the possibility of reflecting our own ideas onto the literature that we read: for example, one could think of freedom when one reads Hölderlin’s “The Ister”, as the phrase “the hunters love to roam” instantly reminds one of the power to travel in whichever direction one wants to (Line 18 of Stanza 2). Moreover, one can form connective ideas that result in a more complex picture of a poem: one could create a better sense of the freedom in “The Ister” through the description of where the hunters themselves roam, as the “valley” that the poem mentions amplifies this idea of freedom by giving the reader a certain (large) space to anchor their imagination onto (Line 17 of Stanza 2). By continually piecing ideas such as these together, one can form an overall understanding of a poem in the contemporary metaphysical paradigm of the interpretation of poetry.
On the other hand, the Heideggerian idea of poetry is quite different, as it does not allow the interpretation of a poem through symbolistic means, but asks the reader to feel the being of the poem in itself. In Heidegger’s Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”, it is indicated that “all … interpretation [of poetry] borrows its tools and its effort indiscriminately from metaphysics” (18). As a result, Heidegger recommends that “The Ister” should not be read as a piece of poem that resembles another thing in nature, but rather that the “thing itself must be allowed to remain in its self-containment” (152). In this sense, the thing must remain in nature and be undisturbed by human reflection. Consequently, Heidegger argues that it is impossible to find being through the use of language insofar as it language is seen as a tool that creates ideas. In essence, language itself must be interpreted as something that directs feeling, wherein it must resonate with nature. Any further sensations that the poem develops must be resisted, as the reader will then focus on another thing instead of the poem in itself. The Heideggerian argument, therefore, is that being can only be reached by poetry because poetry can provide the sensation of being—the “general essence” of things (162). As a result, the experience of things and the feeling of being is extracted from the poem, but this experience must remain untainted by the mind. Perhaps it may be better to put the sensation that the Heideggerian poem reflects in a Nietzschean paradigm, wherein one could say that the drive of the poem is a ‘will to feeling’. The approach, thus, is an influence of the intangible that is mingled with a quasi-Dionysian drive—a drive towards being, the core of things and unity (The Birth of Tragedy, 40): the hermeneutics of being seems to be a drive towards the unknown. This idea is directly seen in Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”, wherein Heidegger is singly focused on the rivers described in the poem; particularly, “nobody knows” what the river does (Line 31 of Stanza 3). Heidegger believes that this line is a perfect representation of his hermeneutics, as it describes the impossibility of humanity in capturing the essence of the river: “what the river does, therefore, not even the poet knows” (Hymn, 20). In this sense, Heidegger argues that “the “rivers” are therefore not to count as symbols of a higher level” (Hymn, 18) as the “work is preserved in the truth that happens through the work itself” (Basic Writings, 193). Heidegger’s hermeneutics directs a reader of a poem to feel the truth of the poem, but it does not endeavor for the whole of the poem’s truth. Only the “thrown projection” of truth is revealed to the reader—a fleeting glimpse of the world that the poem creates (Basic Writings, 197).
It will be impossible to try to argue that Heidegger’s hermeneutics is worse than that of contemporary metaphysics’—this is because as Heidegger argues that any interpretation in the hermeneutics of contemporary metaphysics is problematic, any alignment of the two methodologies is unfeasible; however, it is possible to argue for the hermeneutics of metaphysics by showing that interpretation has more value than the feeling of being (this argument, of course, is wholly in the realm of subjectivity). Firstly, a distinction that can be made is between the language that Heidegger uses as opposed to the language that is used by contemporary metaphysics. While Heidegger believes that language “brings beings as beings out into the open” (197), contemporary metaphysics uses language as a description of human nature (Philosophy and Truth, “Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense”, 84). The anthropomorphism of language is thus the factor that Heidegger tries to fend against with his hermeneutics. However, anthropomorphism in itself is the most familiar way of interpreting a poem, as it is the hermeneutic reading that is closest to us. Though Heidegger’s view may be a better way to approach being, metaphysics’ interpretation offers more analysis of a poem. From this idea, one could say that Heidegger is appealing to a world-truth, while contemporary metaphysics is an approach that tries to find the truth in human perception—Heidegger gives us back the world but also loses us the human being. If one were to relate the river in Hölderlin’s “The Ister” to a human idea, one could say that the river is a symbol of mystery in itself—the mystery of the beauty of the river. The river is “driving his splendor higher” (Line 24 of Stanza 3); in this sense, the river is a thing of aesthetic beauty that does not have a particular function (but that of beauty) that can be perceived by humanity, as no one knows what it does. Moreover, as the river is a part of the Danube (which is seen from the title “The Ister”), and the Rhine is also mentioned in the poem, the two rivers seem to symbiotically grow in beauty as the Rhine is the one who drives the splendor of the Ister (Line 23 of Stanza 3). Geographically, the Rhine is connected to the Ister through the Rhine-Main-Danube canal. As a result, the two rivers grow in beauty through their connection. In the end, it is perfectly arguable that Hölderlin is referring to the impossible beauty of the Ister, and thus no one knows the important functions of the river in themselves. Hölderlin, perhaps, is not asking his readers to consider the Ister in its entirety, as the veneer of the Ister’s beauty is seemingly much too powerful to resist. In fact, Hölderlin mentions that “the earth needs furrowing”, but perhaps no one notices this furrowing because of the beauty of the river (Line 29 of Stanza 3).
It cannot be said that the human interpretation of Hölderlin’s poem does not have merit, as it seems that Hölderlin is trying to indicate something with his poem. I would argue that it is better to anthropomorphize a poem and to relate to it, as the work of art is a creation of the human being, so it should also reflect the human being. A mere idea of the poem is only obtainable if one views the words in themselves without thinking, which is the Heideggerian method of the perception of poetry: one must confine ideas and create an intrinsic emotive response to the poem in order to find truth. To revisit the Sartrean critique of Heideggerian poetry in What is Literature, the best poetry to Heidegger does not say anything (43), as it is supposed to be unfamiliar, to the extent that it is unappreciable in idea-relations. Instead, it is the mere presence of being that the poem exudes that we attribute to and focus on. We do not try to understand this poem, but rather we try to leave it as an undisturbed being. However, the poet’s intentions themselves have already disturbed the poem, so it is questionable as to what degree a poem can be truly undisturbed. This is why I believe that Heidegger believes that a quick glance at a poem is the best way to view one—the furtive gaze into a being, as “there is much in being that man cannot master (Basic Writings, 178). In the end, perhaps the best way to read a poem is to combine the hermeneutics of being with the hermeneutics of metaphysics—to leave the poem undisturbed in its truth as it projects the world, and then to find the interpretative details of the poem. Though the hermeneutics of being is unable to be regained after the metaphysical interpretation of a poem is revealed to the reader, the reader is still reminded of both sensations with the combination of these two methods of reading—the sensation of feeling and the sensation of familiarity. Thus, we regain both the world and ourselves in different times through different perspectives—we take in an impression of being at first glance, and then accept the relentless barrage of interpretation afterwards. With this method, it may be possible that poetry can give us the world back and be appreciated in a complete form.
Works Cited
Heidegger, Martin. Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”. Translated by William McNeill and Julia Davis, Indiana Univ. Press, 1996.
Heidegger, Martin, and David Farrell Krell. Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger. Routledge, 2010.
Hume, David, et al. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Kenneth P. Winkler, Hackett Publishing Company, 1996.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Philosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsche’s Notebooks of the Early 1870’s. Translated by Daniel Breazeale, Humanities Press International, 1979.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Edited by Raymond Geuss. Translated by Ronald Speirs, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What Is Literature?” and Other Essays. Harvard University Press, 1988.
Hölderlin, Friedrich. Friederich Hölderlin: Hymns and Fragments. Translated by Richard Sieburth, Princeton University Press, 1984.
Read and edited by Justin Ho