Yes, Die Kehre (the Turn) in Heidegger’s thought during the period 1936–1942 is indeed unusual for an author or philosopher, precisely because it reflects a profound transformation rather than a linear progression of ideas or a repetition of earlier themes. Your insight—that such a radical shift may only happen if the author is “appropriated by the event”—aligns with Heidegger’s own concept of being drawn into a moment or occurrence beyond individual control. Let’s explore this further:
1. What is “Die Kehre” in Heidegger’s Philosophy?
• “Die Kehre” refers to a fundamental turning point in Heidegger’s thought, marking a shift from the existential focus of Being and Time (1927) to a deeper engagement with the question of Being itself and the role of history, language, and Ereignis (the event of appropriation).
• The focus turns from:
• The individual Dasein as the center of the inquiry (as in Being and Time).
• To the historical unfolding of Being itself, with Dasein now understood as a participant in this larger, event-like process.
2. Why Is This Turn So Unusual for an Author?
Radical Reorientation
• Most authors refine, deepen, or reiterate their earlier ideas, as you pointed out—often elaborating on their one “important work.”
• Heidegger, however, upended the trajectory of his own thought:
• He set aside the project of completing Being and Time.
• Instead, he focused on a poetic and historical approach to Being, expressed in works like Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event).
• This move demonstrates a willingness to let his own thought be transformed by the encounter with Being, rather than merely evolving his previous framework.
Being Appropriated by the Event
• Heidegger described Ereignis (the event) as something that “appropriates” the thinker—it is not a product of personal will but an occurrence in which the thinker participates.
• For Heidegger, this turn was not a deliberate “shift” but an ontological event in itself, revealing new truths about the nature of Being.
Uncommon in Intellectual Trajectories
• For most authors, such a fundamental turn would signify a break or contradiction with their earlier work. For Heidegger, however, it represented a deepening of his earlier insights, driven by an experience or encounter beyond ordinary thought.
3. What Event Could Have Appropriated Heidegger?
Heidegger’s turn might be seen as a response to multiple “events”—both personal and historical:
Historical Events
• The Crisis of Modernity:
• The rise of technology as the defining mode of modern existence (Gestell) deeply influenced Heidegger’s thinking during this period.
• He came to see technological enframing as a historical event that conceals Being, prompting his shift toward an exploration of poetic and historical responses to this crisis.
• World War II and Its Preceding Turmoil:
• The political and existential turmoil of the late 1930s likely deepened Heidegger’s sense that Being must be approached as a historical and collective unfolding, rather than through individual subjectivity.
Philosophical Events
• Encounter with Hölderlin and Nietzsche:
• During this period, Heidegger’s engagement with Hölderlin’s poetry and Nietzsche’s philosophy significantly shaped his turn.
• Hölderlin’s emphasis on poetic dwelling and Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics both contributed to Heidegger’s focus on language and history as the “site” of Being.
Personal Encounter with the Limit of Thought
• Heidegger himself spoke of letting Being reveal itself rather than imposing concepts on it. This suggests that “the turn” was experienced as an event in Heidegger’s own thinking—an ontological moment that “appropriated” him rather than being willed by him.
4. The Exceptionality of the Turn
A Rare Phenomenon
• As you suggest, such a profound turn in an author’s or philosopher’s work is rare because it requires:
• A willingness to let go of one’s foundational project.
• A sense of being drawn into something larger than the self—whether historical, existential, or ontological.
• This makes Heidegger’s Kehre unusual and almost unique, as most authors are not “appropriated” in this way but remain within the boundaries of their initial frameworks.
Examples of Comparable Turns
• Nietzsche’s Turn: The transition from earlier works like The Birth of Tragedy to the radical aphoristic style and themes of Thus Spoke Zarathustra could be seen as a similar appropriation by the event of his own thought.
• Wittgenstein’s Turn: The shift from the logical structure of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to the language-game philosophy of Philosophical Investigations also reflects a radical rethinking, though less event-driven than Heidegger’s.
5. Conclusion
Heidegger’s Kehre (1936–1942) is indeed unusual for an author or philosopher, precisely because it reflects his being appropriated by the event of Being rather than a linear or deliberate intellectual development. This turn signifies an openness to transformation and a surrender to the unfolding of thought as an event—a rare and profound shift that transcends the typical trajectory of creative or intellectual life.
Would you like to delve deeper into how Heidegger’s Kehre reshaped specific concepts like Ereignis or Gestell?
