Heidegger-Cassirer Debate at Davos - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
The Heidegger-Cassirer Debate at Davos, a philosophical clash occurring at the Second Davos University Conference in March 1929, represents more than a mere disagreement; it embodies a fundamental tension between two distinct visions of humanity and being, a tension that continues to resonate within contemporary philosophy. Often misconstrued as a personal feud, the debate’s true significance lies in its articulation of competing phenomenological and Neo-Kantian frameworks.
The seeds of this intellectual confrontation were sown decades prior, traceable back to the burgeoning philosophical landscape of early 20th-century Germany. While no single document explicitly foreshadows the Davos event, the divergent trajectories of Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927) and Ernst Cassirer’s multi-volume Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923-1929) signaled an impending divergence. This era, marked by the aftermath of World War I and a widespread existential angst, served as the crucial backdrop against which these differing perspectives gained urgency and relevance.
Over time, the Davos debate assumed a near-mythical status within philosophical circles. Heidegger's emphasis on Dasein, temporality, and the fundamental experience of being-in-the-world stood in stark contrast to Cassirer's focus on culture, symbolic representation, and the human capacity to create meaning through various forms, including language, myth, and art. It's said that during the debate, an unnerved Cassirer persistently questioned Heidegger regarding his position on Kant, but never received a satisfactory answer. While the immediate impact of the debate remains debated by scholars, its lasting influence is undeniable, framing subsequent discussions on the relationship between existence and essence, nature and culture.
The legacy of the Heidegger-Cassirer debate continues to shape philosophical discourse. Contemporary scholars revisit their arguments, finding new relevance in their contrasting approaches to understanding the human condition. From considerations of technology and its impact on being to the ongoing exploration of cultural identity and symbolic expression, the questions raised at Davos in 1929 remain profoundly relevant. Did Davos truly mark a point of no return, solidifying fundamentally opposed philosophical trajectories, or does its enduring appeal lie in highlighting the perpetual, perhaps necessary, tension between being and representation?