letting heidegger and nietzsche dwell in turkish

8/6/2019 Letting Heidegger and Nietzsche Dwell in Turkish

1/19

Letting Heidegger and NietzscheDwell in Turkish:

Different Sprache, Same metaphysics

Hasan nal Nalbantolu*

In an 1978 article exclusively devoted to Heideggers pathbreaking address,Was ist Metaphysik?

(1929), Hans-Georg Gadamer assesses the unprecedented importance of this work in additional

terms:

Especially the fact that translations into Japanese and later into Turkish appeared so early on says

something, for these translations extended beyond the sphere of the Christian languages of Europe.

Heideggers ability to think beyond metaphysics obviously came across a special readiness in regions

where Greek-Christian metaphysics did not form a self-evident and fundamental background.1

It is interesting to note that the first Turkish translation (1935) is not at all mentioned by Heidegger

himself. In a letter, dated July 31, 1969 to Roger Munier who was responsible for the new French

translation of his now-enlarged work, he exclusively privileged the reception of his thinking through a

Japanese translation which appeared in 1930, the year after the first French translation. As to how

his work in the geographical center of the so-called Western metaphysics was received, Heidegger

was nearly dismissive:

The reaction to the piece in Europe was: nihilism and enmity to logic. In the far East, with the

nothing properly understood, one found in it the word for being.

In the course of the years, by means of a Postscript and an Introduction, I attempted to clarify the

text in regard to the return into the ground of metaphysics; for What is Metaphysics already pushed

the question towards another dimension. There is no metaphysics of metaphysics. But this other

* Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Middle EastTechnicalUniversity, Ankara,

Turkey.

1 .. die Vorlesung >Was ist Metaphysik?< eine ganz besonders strmische und weite Resonanz fand, ist dochnicht zu verkennen. Inbesondere die Tatsache der frhen bersetzung ins Japanische und dann auch noch insTrkische, die beide ber den christlichen Sprachenkreis Europas inausreichen, hat etwas zu sagen. Heideggershinausdenken ber die Metaphysik stt offenbar dort, wo die griechisch-christliche Metaphysik nicht denselbstverstndlichen und tragenden Hintergrund bildet, auf besondere Bereitschaft. Hans-Georg Gadamer,Was ist Metaphysik?, Gesammelte Werke, Band 3 [Neuere Philosophie I: Hegel-Husserl-Heidegger](Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987): 209. / What is Metaphysics?, Heideggers Ways, tr. by JohnW. Stanley, Intro. by Dennis J. Schmidt (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994): 45. [myemphasis]


2/19

dimension, from which metaphysics as such receives what is proper to it, is not yet determined even

today. It remains difficult enough to enter into this determination as a task of thinking.2

Yet, how to explain the conspicuous absence of any mention concerningWas ist Metaphyisk?s

availability yet in another language outside the so-called West? Non-informedness about a Turkishtranslation of the first version long before Heideggers letter to Munier? The reveries of a thinker

who prioritized a partially constructed Greek past deployed against the drift of the Western mind

while remaining largely indifferent to another civilization and consequently taking Turkish as an

unimportant house of being at the outskirts of Western metaphysics (read predominantly Islamic

Near East). This is unlike a partially informed Gadamer who refers in his article to regions where

Greek-Christian metaphysics did not form a self-evident and fundamental background.?

No easy answers could be provided as to the probable causes of Heideggers omission, Still, thereare

few clues to his most likely limited knowledge of Islamic art and philosophical tradition3 which were

not integral to the main thrust of his argument anyway. Not so for us, however.

2 Die Reaktion auf die Schrifft in Europa hie: Nihilismus und Feindschaft gegenber der . Im fernenOsten fand man in ihr mit dem recht verstandenen das Wort fr das Sein.Im Verlauf der Jahre versuchte ich, durch ein und eine den Text im Hinblick auf denRckgang in den Grund der Metaphysik zu verdeutlichen; denn schon die Frage rcktdiese in andere Dimension. Es gibt keine Metaphysik der Metaphysik. Aber diese andere Dimension, aus der dieMetaphysik als solche ihr Eigentmliches empfngt, ist auch heute noch nicht zu bestimmen. Es bleibt scwergenug, sich auf diese Bestimmung als eine Aufgabe des Denkens einzulassen. Quoted in German TranslatorsAfterword to Martin Heidegger, Seminare (Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1986), 414-414. / FourSeminars, tr. by Andrew Mitchell and Franois Raffoul (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University

Press, 2003): 88. Evidence of Heideggers openness to ways of thinking outside Western metaphysics can alsobe found in his correspondence with Karl Jaspers. [Martin Heidegger/Karl Jaspers, Briefwechsel: 1920-1963,Hrsgb. von Walter Biemel und Hans Saner (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1990): esp . Heideggersletter dated Aug. 12 1949, p. 181.]. Nor is it merely confined to his exchanges and dialogues with successiveJapanese and Chinese students and colleagues, but further demonstrated in his later encounters, as in a briefdialogue with a Thai Buddhist monk as well as other conversations with Asian scholars; see, Reden und andereZeugnisse eines Lebensweges, 1910-1976 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2000): Aus Gesprchenmit einem buddhistischen Mnch (Herbst 1963), 589-593 and cf. Heinrich Wiegand Petzet, Auf einen Sternzugehen: Begegnungen und Gesprche mit Martin Heidegger, 1929-1976 (Frankfurt am Main: SociettsVerlag, 1983): Der Mnch aus Bangkok, 153-54. / Encounters and Dialogues with Martin Heidegger,1929-1976, tr. by Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,1993): The Monk from Bangkok, 140; 145-46. In return, a sample of appreciations by e.g. Chung-YuanChang, Hoseki Shinichi Hisamatsu, Paul Shih-Yi Hsiao, Jarava Lal Mehta and Keisei Keiji Nishitani are foundin Erinnerung an Martin Heidegger, Herausgegeben von Gnther Neske (Pfllingen: Verlag Gnther Neske,

1977). A recent book by James W. Heisig [Philosophers of Nothingness: An Essay on the Kyoto School(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002)] sheds more light on Heideggers openness to Far Eastern ways ofthinking.

3It is also significant that for Heidegger what was called philosophy in medieval times was not philosophy but

only a preamble of reason on behalf of theology, as required by faith [ nur das durch den Glauben geforderte

Vorspiel der Vernunft fr die Theologie]... Aristotle was precisely therefore not understood in the Greek way,

i.e. on the basis of the primordial thought and poetry of Greek Dasein, but in a medieval fashion, i.e., in an

Arabic-Jewish-Christian way [nicht griechisch und d. h. aus den Anfngen des griechischen denkerisch-

dichterischen Daseins, sondern mittelalterlisch, arabisch-jdisch-christlich verstanden]. Martin Heidegger,


3/19

Therefore,while listening to the voices of particularly Nietzsche and Heidegger in the background to

hear the song which slumbers in all things (tu use Gadamers elegant phrasing) relevant to our

matter (Sache), present essay takes crucial pointers also from others, most notably, Joseph Needham

and Roland Barthes. Gadamers remark awaits rigorous consideration ultimately via Needhams

monumental oeuvre, but, for the time being, can be related to Barthes brief observation concerninga (read, Western) regime of meaning/discourse which operated under a single theology(Essence,

monotheism) and in a chain of civilization (Graeco-Jewish-Islamic-Christian) all the way from Plato to

France-Dimanche sold on Parisian kiosques.4

There is more to it, and here is a bold hypothesis awaiting further research: neither in the overall

mentality of the late-Ottoman nor of early Republican thinkers can one find any strong resistance

against Nietzsches thought, certainly not stronger than any Christian mentality prevailing in Europe

at the time. Considering Nietzsches reception in other European languages, his challenge to and

reception by certain sections of late-Ottoman intellectual circles was mostly a matter of time,and nota very late one at that.. Here we cannot overlook the degree of exposure occasioned by determinate

historical conditions under which certain centers of learning and culture (notably, Paris) which

exercised a gravitational pull on both the Young Ottomans and their heir,Young Turks. Besides, the

Grundfragen der Philosophie: Ausgewhlte Probleme der Logik: Aus dem ersten Entwurf, (Frankfurt

am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1984): 163. / Martin Heidegger, Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected

Problems of Logic, tr. by R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University

Press, 1992): 141. Besides, Medard Boss provides an easily overlooked anecdote from their trip to Turkey: In

1965, it was Heideggers own initiative that led us to undertake a cruise on the Aegean Sea to Troy, Ephesus,

Pergamos and stanbul. During this third overseas journey, a new shadow phenomenon appeared. As long as

we cruised in the vicinity of Greece and Greek Antiquity, Heidegger was always in the best of spiritsWe had

scarcely left Pergamos and sailed mortheast towards stanbul, when Heidegger became increasingly physically

and psychically vexed...He scarcely regarded the few places of interest which we could induce him to visit. He

seemed rather revolted by them. On the way back..Heideggers mood changed as our ship entered Greek

waters againOur intimacy was such that I could ask him directly what his recalcitrant behavior in stanbul had

meant. He replied: The Islamic air simply does not suit me. The stark ornamentation on and in the

Mohammedan mosques lets one feel the absence of any reference to the human being or to anything in

nature. Such extreme reduction and abstraction in artistic creativity freezes my soul. What I learned much

earlier from a Mohammedan friend had evidently escaped Heideggers attention: namely, the abstention of the

Mohammedan artist from any representation of a living creature does not arise out of his being far removed

from his god, but rather from the deepest reverence for him. It is of such depth that it forbids the

counterfeiting of what has been created by the hand of God. It was a sign of Heideggers readiness to acceptcriticism that he spontaneously assured me that he would in the future see Mohammedan art with different

eyes. Martin Heideggers Zollikon Seminars, tr. by Brian Kenny, Review of Existential Psychology and

Psychiatry, Vol. XVI (1978/79): 7-20. [Original in Erinnerung an Martin Heidegger, Herausgegeben von Gnther

Neske (Pfllingen: Verlag Gnther Neske, 1977): 31-45 [my emphases].

4Roland Barthes, Change the Object Itself: Mythology Today, Image-Music-Text, tr. by S. Heath (London:

Fontana. 1977): 167.


4/19

resonances Nietzsche and Heideggers work caused in otherSprache are not fully appreciated even

today, save few notable exceptions.5

Such historisch hypothesis is not mere intellectual extravaganza. Intended as a spur for an initial and

necessarily incomplete attempt in a direction yet not entirely known. This also means a deliberatedistancing from the current Wissenschaftsbetrieband Kulturindustrie in Turkey which is increasingly

geared to busy-ness and frenzy of a techno-scientific world-(dis)order under todays

Amerikanismus, a speeded-up extension of an erstwhile Europe, which presently holds sway over

mondialisation (Derrida).6

Accordingly, overall process of entry of both thinkers into the house of Turkish can neither be

reduced to subjective motives of agents responsible for both translation (bersetzung) and

interpretation (Auslegung) nor be explained away by pointing at successive historical conjunctures of

5 Among which are: Graham Parkes, Between Nationalism and Nomadism: Wondering about the Languages ofPhilosophy,Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspectives, ed. by Eliot Deutsch (Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press, 1991):455-467.The contributions to the following publications edited by GrahamParkes among a myriad of other articles by him as well as many non -Western scholars are particularly welcomeendeavours in this still largely unexplored region (Bezirk): Nietzsche and Asian Thought, ed. by G. Parkes(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991) and Heidegger and Asian Thought, ed. by G. Parkes (Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press, 1987).

6 I take it to be a speeded-up Europe come true, something Heidegger predicted long ago when he wrote: DerAmerikanismus ist etwas Europisches. Er ist die noch unverstandene Abart des noch losgebundenen und nochgar nicht aus dem vollen und gesammelten metaphysischen Wesen der Neuzeit entspringenden Riesenhaften.Die amerikanische Interpretation des Amerikanismus durch den Pragmatismus bleibt noch auerhalb des

metaphysischen Bereiches., Die Zeit des Weltbildes, Zusatz 12, Holzwege (Frankfurt am Main: VittorioKlostermann, 1950): 103-104. Others, too, have written on this now-global phenomenon; see especially, RobertBernasconi, I Will Tell You Who You Are. Heidegger on Greco-Roman Destiny andAmerikanismus, FromPhenomenology to Thought, Errancy, and desire: Essays in Honor of William J. Richardson, ed. byBabette E. Babich (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995): 301-314. Additionally, Michael Ermarth,Heidegger on Americanism:Ruinanz and the End of Modernity, Modernism/Modernity, VII/3 (September2000): 379-400. I believe that the question ofAmerikanismus should also be dealt with against the backdrop ofdiscussion concerning the possibility of community in the West. For an excellent discussion, again see: RobertBernasconi, On Deconstructing Nostalgia for Community within the West: The Debate between Nancy andBlanchot, Research in Phenomenology, XXIII (1993): 3-21. It should also be noted that Ottoman intellectualAhmet Midhat has written an article on this phenomenon a century ago [first serialized in the daily, Tercmn-Hakkat [Interpreter/Voice of Truth] and later republished as a separate book (Dersaadet=stanbul:1307H./1890A.D.)] The article was partly based on his first-hand observations (the Congress of Orientalists inChristiana) and interviews (orientalist scholar Max Mller, in particular) wherein Ahmet Midhat wrote: Even

though it is customary for the westerners to call Europe vieil Europe, such attribution of oldness can only be arelative one, i.e. in comparison to the new world, the young America. True, the sudden jump from excess toprudence and vice versa is observed more in this young America than in Europe, and apropriately so consideringits very youth. On the other hand, Europe has not yet reached maturity in [matters of] philosophy/wisdom, inspite of its relative oldness vis--vis America. There is no doubt that its brother, Asia is much older and muchmore experienced in such matters. Even so, there is no doubt, however, that this g ood old Europe, neither ingreat hurry as America nor patient enough as Asia, can suddenly lose its cool and get carried away easily by thecosmetics of the new things [such as this new fad of Buddhism in Paris], Pariste Otuz Bin Budist [ThirtyThousand Buddhists in Paris], republished in Ahmet Midhat, Felsefe Metinleri [Philosophical Texts] ed. byErdoan Erbay and Ali Utku (Erzurum: Babil Yaynlar/Seyfeddin zege Osmanl Klasikleri Dizisi, 2002):125/a125.


5/19

politico-cultural-intellectual climate. Ultimately, our attempt should aim at a historical (geschichtlich)

grounding, partly based on and yet far beyond even the most solid and qualified historiological

(historisch) explanations. Moreover, one must constantly be guarding against both the familiar

(orientalist; islamist) prejudices and such boring quasi-touristic clichs as Turkeys assumed cultural

uniqueness, its bridging the East and the West. For an authentic >Sorge


6/19


7/19

Given an energy which at times and in certain individual cases going unrestrained, such extreme

cases call to mind the cloud ofAngstand boredom -a phenomenon being partly objective, partly

subjective-10 borne by modern existential predicaments, and enveloping young and restless

members of an intelligentsia who had to face the challenge of a fast-paced, increasingly faceless

modernity. One could justifiably advance that a commanding order, a fgender Fug (Heidegger)was out of its joints. Things and individuals, especially the freischwebend Intelligenz(Karl Mannheim)

in the cosmopolitan centers of a crumbling Empire were shrouded in the veryAngstwhich I

emphasized earlier. Earlier Comtian positivism, still in currency for its belief in progrs and strong

conservative bent toward ordre,11wasnt of much help either. Such positivism which inspired names

for such revolutionary jacobin organizations as The Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad ve

TerakkCemiyeti) against Sultans autocratic rule served as an ideological lever for change without

endangering the existing order. This hardly helped to overcome the toll Neuzeitcollected from

individuals.12

10 In Heideggers words: Kurz: die Langeweile und so am Ende jede Stimmung ist ein Zwitterwesen, teilsobjektiv, teils subjektiv., Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik: Welt-Endlichkeit-Einsamkeit, (Frankfurt amMain: V. Klostermann, 1983): 132. / The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World-Finitude-Solitude,tr. by W. McNeill and N. Walker, (Bloomington: Indiana 1929-30 University Press, 1995): 88.

11 Theodor W. Adorno restates a plain fact concerning Comtean positivism: [E]ven Comte himself manifests acontradictory position; he was equally concerned with the problems of order -that is, of constants- and ofprogress. In truth his sympathy was more on the side of order than of progress. On the Historical Adequacy ofConsciousness, tr. in Telos, No. 56 [XVI/2] (Summer 1983): 99; for the original of this interview with Petervon Haselberg in 1965 see Akzente, 12 (1965): 287-297. One should also note that Comte has sent many lettersto the sovereigns around Europe, seeking support for his conservative vision of positive polity, including

reformist statesmen of the Ottoman Tanzimat era. For the texts of both Comtes letter to Grand Vizier ReitPasha (February 4, 1858) and those of certain positivists to Midhat Pasha (August 26, 1877) and his reply(Turkish translation by mid Meri and Mehmed Ali Meri; brief contextual discussion by lber Ortayl), seeMustafa Reit ve Midhat Paalarla A. Comte ve Pozitivistler, [Mustafa Reit and Midhat Pashas, A. Comteand Positivists], Tarih ve Toplum [History and Society], February 14, 1985): 102-106.

12Early unsuccesful suicide attempt of Ziya Gkalp, the ideological sheikh of theIttihad ve Terakk, is a typicalexample. Yet there were exceptions like Yusuf Akura who deployed their intellectual reserves for revolutionaryand yet non- and even anti-romantic causes in building a new nation, in full awareness that the realm of thepolitical is a certain manifestation of will to power. Akuras lectures on Political History of ContemporaryEurope (1927-32) at what was initially Ankara School of Law is a typical example. At the end of eachacademic year he used to remind students of certain facts as these: struggle is the basic principle of life whichdemands from humans incessant labor to build mastery over things; only the powerful who derive strength fromlabor are capable of having a word at both the individual and societal levels, both for self-survival and for the

survival of others; so, the balance of power is always the prerequisite for any viable international agreement.Akura often quoted from speeches of Mustafa Kemal Atatrk to that effect, adopting latters punchlinesentences as mottos. See, for example: Akuraolu Yusuf, Zamanmz Avrupa Siyasi Tarihi - 6nc tedrissenesi (Ankara: Ankara Hukuk Fakltesi Neriyat/T.B.M.M. Matbaas, 1930-1931): 4. Akuras somewhatoverenthusiastic review of Atatrks book, Nutuk [Discourse] is in similar vein, praising The Leaders matter-of-factness, positively Darwinian bent of his mind, and his unmediated touch with naked reality which saved himfrom mystical and romantic illusions and empty imaginings. See: Akuraolu Yusuf, Trkiye Cumhuriyetitarihinin asl menbalarndan: Nutuk, Trk Tarih Encmeni Mecmuas [Revue historique publie parLInstitut dHistoire Turque], Yeni Seri, Cilt I/Say 1 (Haziran -Austos 1929): 1-25; esp. 17-18. Atatrksbook has been translated into several languages among which is Discours du Ghazi Moustafa Kemal,prsident de la Rpublique Turque: Octobre 1927 (Leipzig : K. F. Koehler, 1929).


8/19

Another example in the coming years was Baha Tevfik (1884-1914), brilliant young advocate of a new

philosophy for the individual and a co-translator and collator of Nietzsche13 (albeit from mostly

secondary and dominantly French sources) whose meteorite rise in the intellectual milieu was

accompanied by mounting despair and almost saturnian melancholy, culminating in a dubious death

in his mid-thirties.14 Still, it is to the credit of these young, occasionally self-burning individualists of

peaceful anarchistic bent that, beyond existing and not fully digested knowledge of Schopenhauer,

Hegel, Kant, Comte and Durkheim, Nietzsche was brought onto the agenda of discussion.

During this volatile period, it was not only Baha Tevfik and his close circle who were attracted

Nietzsches thinking. There were also others, however little informed about his work as was publicly

accessible at the time. Cell Nuri [leri] (1864-1944), an influential westernist intellectual and

journalist who was also among early champions of womens rights,15 posited bold theses against

metaphysics, old style religion, and philosophy in his three volume book, Tarih-i stikbl[History of

Future] (1916). In this work, he deployed highly ambiguous quotes from Nietzsches maverick ideas

(apparently, again from French sources) for his own idiosyncratic vision of building a new, modern

society among the ruins of a collapsing social order, particularly its religious and intellectual

13 See Baha Tevfik, Birey Felsefesi (Felsefe-i Ferd) [A Philosophy for the Individual], simplified Turkish ed.and intro. by Burhan ayli, subtitled Anarizmin Osmanlcas-1 (stanbul: Altkrkbe Yaynlar-OsmanlDnce Tarihi Dizisi, No.1, 1992 [1332 H./1913 S.D.?]). Baha Tevfiks various articles on moral matters andpedagogy were recently collected and published under the title, Yeni Ahlk ve Ahlk zerine Yazlar[Writings on Morality and New Morality], ed. by Faruk ztrk (Ankara: T.C. Kltr bakanlYaynlar/Kltr Eserleri Dizisi, No. 345, 2002). Bah Tevfiks life and work has been a subject of variousstudies, some of which appear to be university dissertations. A valuable study is Rza Bac, Baha TevfikinHayat, Edeb ve Felsef Eserleri zerinde Bir Aratrma [A Study on Baha Tevfiks Life and Literary-Philosophical Oeuvre] (zmir: Kaynak Yaynlar, 1996). Most relevant to our present purposes, however, is the

original cooperative work by Ahmed Nebil, Bah Tevfik and Memdh Sleymn, titled Nie: Hayt veFelsefesi: Hfding, Eml Fge, Anr Lihtenberger gibi mellifn-i mehrenin sr- tenkdiyyelerinden[Nietzsche: His Life and Philosophy: based on the critical works of famous writers, Harald Hffding, EmileFaguet and Henri Lichtenberger] ( stanbul: Gayret Ktbhnesi/Teceddd-i lm ve Felsef Ktbhnesi, n.d.).This work has recently been reissued in latin script and simplified Turkish by Burhan ayli who also wrote alengthy introductory essay to the book; see: Baha Tevfik [et.al.], Nietzsche: Hayat ve Felsefesi (stanbul: KarKy Yaynlar, 2001). Among the three French authors consulted by Baha Tevfik and his colleagues, it shouldbe Henri Lichtenbergers La philosophie de Nietzsche (Paris: Alcan, 1898 [4th ed. 1899]), the only reference Icould find in otherwise comprehensive bibliography to Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher,Psychologist, Antichrist, Revised Fourth ed. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974): 503.As for Emile Faguet (1847-1916), he was the professor of literature at the Sorbonne; cf. Max Webers letter toG. Lukcs (March 6, 1913), in Georg Lukcs, Selected Correspondence, 1902-1920, tr. and ed. by JudithMarcus and Zoltn Tar (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1986): 221.

14 Given the patchiness of knowledge about Baha Tevfiks restless life, intellectually dedicated to a newphilosophy for the individual as well as the lives of his associates of similar materialist bent, we still need tomap out their existential bearings in the rapidly changing late-Ottoman social and intellectual world. Hisfriends and critics alike point to an intellectual stamina tarnished only by absence of ideals and an overalldisorientation. See Rza Bac, Baha Tevfikin: 30, 36. Even the deaths of theseAngst-ridden and freely-floating young intelligentsia are shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty, as in the case of the all eged murder ofAhmet Nebil [ika?] in Tirana right after the World War II; cf. Burhan aylis introductory essay in Baha Tevfik[et.al.], Nie: Hayat ve Felsefesi: 17.

15Cell Nuri, Op.cit., Vol. III, Chp. Titled Kadnn stikbali, [The Future of Women]: 139 -146. This chapterappears to be a condensed version of Cell Nuris arguments in his earlier book, Kadnlarmz [Our Women]


9/19

debris.16Cell Nuri can loosely be taken as a a hard-headed romantic-modernist believer in the

advancement of science with its experimental methods which he advocated as the sole vehicle for

reaching out to truth in an age totally severing ties with the past, including its philosophical

traditions. For him this meant that such philosophies as those of Kant and Hegel, too, were

condemned to oblivion.

Cell Nuris far-out ideas, particularly those feverishly advanced in his book (1916), did not go

unchallenged. Ferid Kam (1864-1944), an Islamist thinker, levelled a sarcastic criticism in a highly

charged article17. What particularly pitched Kam against him was Cell Nuris reckless assertion that

madness is the foster brother of philosophy for which he openly referred to Nietzsches example.

Kams logical counter-argument can be summarized as follows: Nietzsche may very well be both a

philosopher and a madman; yet such mental derangement may encaptivate any member of our

species and does not exclusively hit philosophers and men of science Cell Nuri champions. Personal

coincidences can not necessarily be taken as a sign of collapse either of a philosophical system or a

scientific one. It is, therefore, beyond any reasonably thinking human being that Cell Nuri dismisses

the sound sayings of so many philosophers since Aristotle while taking the jibberish uttered by a

wretched madman, Nietzsche, as the strongest evidence for philosophys alleged worthlessness.

Cell Nuris superficial and indirect knowledge of Nietzsche notwithstanding, the partial truth

intuited from such encounter with Nietzsche which he mobilized for his assessment of the present,

escaped Kams attention completely. Besides, no evidence on Kams part whatsoever for slightest

acquaintance with Nietzsches thought (around 1914) before reading Cell Nuris book.

16Cell Nuri, Tarih-i stikbl [History of Future] 3 Vols [on Ideas, Political and Social matters, respectively].(stanbul: Yeni Osmanl Matbaa ve Ktbhanesi, 1331/1916). It is curious that the book starts, in a vein almostreminiscent of a certain European Romantic retreat of mind, with a highly subjective na rration of personalreverie on the balcony of his house overlooking Bosphorus,. In the very first chapter of the Book I on the Futureof Philosophy (pp. 7-24), Cell Nuri audaciously condemns the hitherto speculative philosophies (such as thatof Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer) as metaphysics in the name of modernity and progress under the aegis ofmodern science and technics and their experimental methods. At the same time, he thinks that in the moderntimes, philosophy cannot be but both the physiology and poetry of technics (p. 22), and every philosophical

strand accommodates a certain dose of madness. Interestingly, he hits a partial truth when he calls forNietzsches ( an invalid) help towards this end, referring to a variety of latters aphorism s which, one suspects,are taken from unknown-to-us and apparently unreliable secondary sources. Here are some of the (mis)quotes indirect translation from Cell Nuris own text: I dont believe any god who doesnt know how to dance;Beware of good men, There is no truth, so anything goes, I see that Im in the wrong when everybody agreeswith me, etc.

17 . Ferd Kam, Cell Nurinin Tarih-i stikbali: Sakz inemek, [Cell Nuris book,History of Future:mere babbling] Original in Ottoman-Arabic script: Ferd (Kam), Tarih-i stikbal Cell Nuri Bey,Seblrread, XI/12 (Rebiulevvel 1332/Ocak 1914): 283-287; reprinted in, Sleyman Hayri Bolay, Fert Kam,(Ankara: T.C. Kltr ve Turizm Bakanl yay. No. 872, 1988): 65-76.


10/19

As to Cell Nuris dismissal of metaphysics, a religious man like Ferd Kam does not hesitate to call

Cell a quixotic character, an ignoramus in philosophical matters whose wild speculations were

entirely based upon superficial knowledge without foundation.

There is a curious aspect of this story however. It is very interesting that Kams defense ofmetaphysics against Cell Nuris attack does not solely show a Moslem intellectuals good grasp of

Cartesian philosophy (a sign of a shared metaphysics la Barthes, perhaps), but by quoting exactly

the same passage from Descartes with which Heidegger started 1949 Einleitung to his expanded Was

ist Metaphysik?, it almost anticipates the latters debate in reverse.18

Nietzsches influence on certain prominent literary figures is also part of this scene. A highly popular

novelist, Hseyin Rahmi Grpnar (1864-1944) being highly appreciative of his mentor, Ahmet

Midhats heritage, had been developing serious interest in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche forsome

time and, as one biographer wrote, even attempted to translate Nietzsches works into Turkish at the

age of seventy (1934) when he increasingly felt the approaching nothingness of an old age.19

Grpnar took Nietzsche as an important lead into the enigmas of modern existence, as is obvious

from two articles he wrote.20 Grpnars reflections on Nietzsches insights concerning modern man

have in fact helped him to construct certain characters in his novels.21

18 Original of Kams quote from Descartes, as given by Heidegger in full is: Ainsi toute la Philosophie estcomme un arbre, dont les racines sont la Mtaphysique, le tronc est la Physique, et les branches qui sortent dece tronc sont toutes les autres sciences. [from a letter to Picot who translatedPrincipiae Philosophiae intoFrench]. See Kam, Ibid.: 73. Cf. Martin Heidegger, Metafizik Nedir?/ Was ist Metaphysik?, original text andTurkish tr. by Yusuf rnek (Ankara: Trkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 1991): .

19Sevengil, R.A., Hseyin Rahmi Grpnar: hayat, hatralar. (stanbul: Hilmi Kitabevi, 1944): 134. Sevengil

provides a vivid description of this key mood in Grpnars late hermitic existence.

20The first of these articles, Nietzsche (Nie) 8 Cildi [Eight Volumes of Nietzsc he], which appeared first in the

Turkish daily, Cumhuriyet [The Republic], August 15, 1939, gives useful information about the origins of

Grpnars interest in Nietzsche. At the outset, Grpnar informs his readers that he bought an eight-volume

edition of Nietzsches works about twenty years ago (1919!). Obviously it was a French edition, for Grpnar

quotes from La gai savoir(Die frhliche Wissenschaft), perceptively discussing Nietzsches aversion to all

systems of thought and emphasizing the potency of his open ended inquiries into the nature of truth and

falsity. See. Hseyin Rahmi Grpnar, Gazetecilikte Son Yazlarm, Cilt 2: Zorla Ahlaksz Olduk [My Late

Journalistic Writings, Vol.2: Becoming Immoral by Force of Circumstance] ed. by Abdullah and Glin

Tanrnnkulu (stanbul: zgr Yaynlar, 2002): 119-123. An equally interesting second article on the meaning of

life and the transgression of boundaries, Nie, Felsefe ve Delilik [Nietzsche, Philosophy and Madness] in the

same volume (pp. 159-162) is undated, most probably from his late years of solitude on an island in Bosphorus.

21For example, portrait of Hikmetullah Efendi, crackpot protagonist of Grpnars posthumously published

novel, Deli Filozof [Mad Philosopher] (written during Sept. 24, 1930-May 7, 1931; first pub. 1964). Another


11/19

So, when the first lights of daybreak for a new imagined community dawned on the horizon of

futurality ofDasein among especially the new Republican intelligentsia, and only then, a

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson and Heidegger made full sense and were considered worthy of

translation, this time preferably from the originals. Note that this case cannot be treated as an

example of belated modernity in Turkey. The reception of such intellectual luminaries did not lagbehind long, thanks to the hastened modernization carried forward at full-scale now by a modern

republican administration. The clich of ten-yearsdelay in following Europe, even uttered by many

Turkish intellectuals today, is at best an idle-talk (Gerede) without foundation.

Thus, inspired partly by aforementioned insight of Gadamer, one could justifiably advance another

conjecture that such interest in both Nietzsche and Heidegger wouldnt flourish merely because of a

crisis caused by the coming of modernity. Surely there existed a mostly amorphous and unelaborated

urge felt by intelligentsia; yet the distant historical roots lay deeper in a metaphysics which was not

exclusive feature of European languages, as advanced by a myriad of eurocentric perspectiveswithout foundation. For a better qualified understanding, following words of Steiner could very well

serve as another pointer:

How is it possible for poetry or prose thousands of years old, in languages recapturable only in part

and with difficulty, to address us, to inform and move us profoundly? What does it mean to grasp, to

paraphrase a line in Gilgamesh or the Iliad, to attempt translation? And is that question, in essence,

not that which attaches to all human linguistic, semiotic exchanges even in ones own native tongue

and among contemporaries?22

Since our discussion is necessarily limited to a possible authentic dialogue with both thinkers in

Turkish, it is time now to turn attention to the ethos and mentality of a still younger generation who,

like some of predecessors, were sent to Europe as candidates for future intellectual mandarinate to

posthumously published book (1968), nsanlar Maymun muydu?[Have Men originated from Apes?] (first

serialized in the newspaper, Cumhuriyet, in 1934 in which also appears the figure of a philosopher who

condemns effects of modern civilization on man. Grpnars fallback on religion on moral issues may partly be

responsible here. See Hseyin Rahmi Grpnar, Deli Filozof(stanbul : Pnar Yaynlar, 1964) and nsanlar

Maymun muydu? (stanbul : Pnar Yaynlar, 1968). The original dates of the two novels, as they coincide withthe first wave of translations of Nietzsche and Heidegger, clearly point to a period of gr owing interest on the

part of Turkish literati.

22George Steiner, Grave jubilation, [review of Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The representation of reality inWestern Literature], The Times Literary Review, September 19, 2003, 3-5. Auerbachs book which firstappeared in Berne, Switzerland (1946) and later in English translation (1953), was written during his sojourn inIstanbul between May 1942 and April 1945. This excellent review by Steiner also provides important clues as tohow a thinker of calibre makes best of even the limited literary resources at his disposal in exile to produce amonumental work.


12/19

serve the new Turkish Republic. It is not a question of merely the influence of an intellectual climate,

especially in post-war Germany or France, or of any particular professor with whom they studied in

their respective, mostly techno-scientific disciplines while being there. Remembering Heideggers

discussion of t mathmata in a Freiburg lecture in 1935-36(Die Frage nach dem Ding),23, there had

to be an Offene a receptivity in thepsyche and nos of young minds, a readiness to be influenced by

the new even if it first flourished in a different language-world. take Gadamers remark should

therefore be taken seriously in this modern sense as well. Such readiness and enthusiasm should also

be traced, through a rigorous study to distant sources which share with theAbendlandsame

metaphysics in itsAnfang but have now withdrawn into concealment in the so-called Middle or Near

East. How could we otherwise intelligibly grasp not only the transmission of Greek classics, but above

all, the peculiar transformation effected by the great contributions of Islamic falasifa, especially their

immense synthesis of Platonic-Aristotelian principles with the actual operation of the political,

especially within the sphere of statecraft? Isnt there an unconsciously operating spillover effect from

a native national and religious background upon these young students who were sent to study in

Europe and, unlike Turkey today, were still endowed with knowledge of Ottoman language and

script? Such inquiry demands Heideggers Strenge over mere historiological Exaktheit. Moreover,

such project subverts illusions and conscious fabrications of a eurocentric identity, a relatively recentoccidental construction.

Professors Suut Kemal [Yetkin],24 Mazhar evket [pirolu] and Mahmut Sadi [Irmak]25 were the

prominent figures of now-growing interest in Nietzsche and Heidegger during this new period,

23 Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach dem Ding: Zu Kants Lehre von den Transzendentalen Grundstzen,Gesamtausgabe, Band 41 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1984): 69-108. / What is a Thing?, tr. W.

B. Barton, Jr. & Vera Deutsch (South Bend, Indiana: Regnery/Gateway, Inc., 1967): 69 -108.

24 Prof. Suut Kemal Yetkin, aesthete, art theoretician and historian who extensively wrote on philosophicalproblems, was well steeped in the French language. Beside his interest in a thinker like Nietzsche, he alsocollaborated with pirolu in translating Heideggers into Turkish. Prof. Mazhar evket pirolu, a doyen of arthistory in Turkey who was also documentary film maker, was educated in Germany.

25Prof. Irmak, trained as a physiologist in Berlin, also put out original work in his specialty. While still a dozent

at IstanbulUniversity he translated the First part of Nietzsches work. He also had a relatively illustrious career

in Turkish politics. In the forties being a deputy in Turkish Parliament representing Konya, he also served in the

capacity of the Minister of Work and Employment in government cabinets (09.03.1943-07.08.1946) during the

terms of both Prime Ministers, Recep Peker and kr Saraolu (second term: 07.08.1946-10.09.1947). Not

long before his death, Prof. Irmak was a senate member of the Parliament and served as prime minister for abrief tenure during which he gained notoriety for his seemingly nave remark about the polygamic nature of

males. There are grounds to think that he may have been under the influence of Nietzsches remarks on

women, thereby drawing the anger and public reprimand of the advocates of further rights for Turkish women

in both public and private spheres, most notably by Prof. Nermin Abadan-Unat of Faculty of Political Science,

Ankara University, who was herself later a senate member in the Turkish Parliament. The suspicion I entertain

about this Nietzsche inspiration which was particularly disturbing for some, is based on Irmaks allusion to

Nietzsches indictments of women in Also Sprach Zarathustra for having a modicum of truth. (Cf. Irmaks

short analysis to the second edition of Zarathustra translation: Zerdt Tercemesine dair Bir Ka Sz [A Few


13/19


14/19

earlier 1934 and 1939 analyses of Nietzsche, especially the appreciation ofbermensch,30 Baolu

was condemning Nietzsches philosophy along with now-collapsing Nazi regime, meanwhile drawing

attention to an ideological shift among certain sections of Turkish intelligentsia from pro-Nazi

sympathies to a hesitant flirtation with Western democracies. Baolus highly reductionist

evaluation has serious flaws and is indicative of how much even perception from afar is heavily

conditioned by the Nazis blatant co-optation of Nietzsches thought for their own ends.

Yet the popularity of Nietzsche, now a household name in Turkey was sustained even during the high

decade of Americanism with the appearance of later third and fourth editions of Irmaks now

complete translation ofZarathustra.31 This constrasts with the absence of interest in Heideggers

work which could even be the case in mid-Thirties when the translation appeared. A new translation

ofZarathustra by Turan Oflazolu in largely poetic rendering was published by Turkish Ministry of

National Education in 1964 among its popular Classics Series32 the colorful styling of which betraying

a spillover effect from translators background in philosophy, theater and Anatolian traditions of

folklore. In the early seventies, yet another translation based on the copies in the original, English

and French was to follow, this time by an ex-ambassador who was a former student of Prof. Suut

Kemal Yetkin who was invited to write a foreword.33 As of today, there are about at least nine

Zarathustra translations, not to mention his other important works. Some are translated at least

twice and rushed by different publishers competing to carve out their share of ever-increasing

Nietzsche readership in the book market.

Therefore, we witness for the first time a flooding of the gates in Nietzsche translations, pioneered

finally by translations of two of his other works, namely, Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der

Grieschen and Die Geburt der Tragdie (aus dem Geiste der Musik). The former was in fact published

as early as 1956, arguably breaking the spell ofZarathustra in Turkey which was wrongly perceived asthe pinnacle and sole representative of Nietzsches thought up until then. This was partly a

consequence of its relatively simple and yet commanding language even in translation,34 quite

30 Prof. Dr. Sadi Irmak, Faizmle beraber ken bir felsefe, Ulus [Nation],6 Austos 1943. The daily, Ulus,was the official organ of the Peoples Republican Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), the governing party duringthe one-party rule which effectively ended in 1950 elections.

31 F. Nietzsche, Zerdt Byle Dedi, drt ksm bir arada [all four parts], tr. by Sadi Irmak, Third ed. (stanbul:kbal Yaynevi, n.d. [1954?] A fourth ed. with essentially the same analysis and slightly modified wording wassoon to follow by the same publishing house (on the cover: Tamam gzden geirilmi, haiyeli 4nc Bask

and again no date, most probably 1959).

32 F. Nietzsche, Byle Buyurdu Zerdt, tr. by Turan Oflazolu (stanbul: MilliEitim Basmevi, 1964).[Translation being No. 103 of the German Classics as part of the Series, Translations from the WorldLiterature, a great initiative started in the forties by Hasan Ali Ycel, the legendary Minister of NationalEducation,].

33 F. Nietzsche, Zerdt Byle Diyordu, tr. by Osman Derinsu (stanbul: Varlk Yaynlar, 1972).

34 The first was a reliable translation by Prof. Nusret Hzr ( from a Krner edition), philosopher and one-timeassistant to Hans Reichenbach. [Friedrich Nietzsche, Yunanllarn Trajik anda Felsefe, tr. by Nusret Hzr


15/19

indicative of difficulties in the mental readiness of the receiving side (reader) in confronting

Nietzsche.

Ioanna Kuuradis writings on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche35 certainly played a very important role in

further reinforcing the already-existing interest in Nietzsche, particularly in the direction of theadvancement of human rights of which she still is an ardent advocate.

In spite of such high interest in Nietzsche, it can not be claimed that his thought has been received

and appreciated with necessary cool-headedness. Zarathustra figure and the figure ofbermensch

continues to dominate many minds and often for sentimental reasons on the wide spectrum ofder

letzte Mensch in Turkey. For part of a new generation of literati, this interest is kept alive, thanks

partly to the effect of Michel Foucaults work, particularly his announcement in Les mots et les choses

of the end of man as a historically transient construct of Western thinking.36 What is often

(first printing: Ankara: Trkiye Bankas Kltr Yaynlar, 1956)]. Given that this was an unfinishedmanuscript of what Nietzsche initially projected as a separate book and later as a companion piece with changingtitles toDie Geburt der Tragdie, a project which he finally dropped [ Introduction by Daniel Breazeale toPhilosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsches Notebooks of the Early 1870s, ed. and tr. by D.Breazeale (New Jersey: Humanities Press International, 1979): xviii-xxiii for Nietzsches letters to Erwin Rohde(Jan. 31 and Feb. 21, 1873), to his mother and sister (Feb. 8, 1873) and to Carl von Gersdorf (February 24 andApril 5, 1873)]. The translation ofDie Geburt der Tragdie by smet Zeki Eybolu, most probably fromGerman, appeared nine years later [Friedrich Nietzsche, Tragedyann Douu, tr. smet Zeki Eybolu(stanbul: Ata Kitabevi, 1965] with a passionately worded short introduction by Eybolu condemning theprejudices of an epigone Europe and its unfounded myth of the Greek miracle and pointing to the awakeningof Asia. Eybolu was just another Anatolianist in the footsteps of influential Turkish humanist, Cevat akir

[a.k.a the Fisherman of Halicarnassus] who was an old Oxford graduate with a sound knowledge of ancientGreek language and civilization and carrying the spirit of controversy his alma mater had with Cambridgeconcerning Hellenism. Cevat akir was tracing many elements of Greek civilization to their Asiatic roots,Anatolian civilizations in particular, long before scholars in the West have started to admit such heritage.Eybolu was soon to publish a number of translations from Nietzsche, among which were: Tarih stne[VomNutzen und Nachteil der Historie fr das Leben?] (stanbul: Olu Yaynlar, 1965), Gezgin ve Glgesi [DerWanderer und Sein Schatten] ((stanbul: Olu Yaynlar, 1966), as well as selections [Semeler] fromNietzsche (stanbul: Milliyet Yaynlar, 1973) to which he contributed a 76-page introduction. Last to bementioned in this second wave is an Ecce Homo translation by Can Alkor (Ankara: Dost yaynlar, 1969). ForNietzsches works in translation the floodgates have now definitely opened. However, the subjection ofNietzsche to subjective interpretations was only recently brought to attention by Oru Aruoba, a qualifiedtranslator, who argued that understanding Nietzsche texts is ultimately bound up with the question: What amI? [ Oru Aruoba, Nietzscheyi Anlamak, [Understanding Nietzsche] Cogito, No. 25 (2001): 267-268;appended to the article is a passage fromZarathustra in original on reading and writing along with seven

different translations.]

35 See particularly, Ioanna Kuuradi, Nietzsche ve nsan [Nietzsche and Man], Revised 2nd ed. (Ankara:Trkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 1995 [1st ed.: stanbul: Yank Yaynlar, 1967]). Prof. Kuuradi, besides appending anearlier published [1986] article titled, Nietzsche: a ve amz [Nietzsche. His Age and Ours] to the secondedition of her work, had already written a section on the concept of tragic in Nietzsche in a book on thephilosophical approaches to the phenomenon of art, theater in particular; see: Ioanna Kuuradi, SanataFelsefeyle Bakmak[Envisioning Art Philosophically] (Ankara: iir-Tiyatro Yaynlar, 1979): FriedrichNietzschede Trajik, 23-35. The present author considers, however, the humanism she reads into Nietzschesoeuvre is in many ways untenable, given the very nature of Nietzsches treatment of this problematical concept.


16/19

overlooked in exhortations concerningbermensch is not only Sadi Irmaks reservations about this

concept37 but the very fact that it occupies a rather limited, indeed a minimal place within the corpus

of Nietzsche.38

Let us now turn our gaze to early reception of Heidegger in Turkey, keeping in mind that, due to theethos of the translators, the introduction of the selected texts by both thinkers into the

language/world of modern Turkish Republic has also suffered from meanings sought in and

interpretations provided. This fact cannot be attributed solely to the political and cultural project of

contemporaneity consciously pursued by Republican administrations under successive volatile

conjunctural conditions of world disorder and advancing homelesness. Such ethos was largely

shaped by what was then holding sway in European cultures, as evidenced by the translations of

Also sprach Zarathustraand, especially, Was ist Metaphysik?39In the case of the latter (1935), the

two translators used both the original and a French translation which is fair enough, but their 20-

page introductory analysis clearly misrepresents Heideggers project of dismantling metaphysics for

their evaluation of Heideggers text partly in the light of Max Scheler.40

In spite of anthropologizations in translators introduction, the appearance ofWas ist Metaphysik?

in Turkish couple of years after its original publication should be considered an important event. At

the time, introduction of a radical language reform under the banner of Turkism found its way

somehow into the language of this translation.41 The nationalistic language reform is often ridiculed

36 The way Nietzsches concept ofbermensch plays a role in Foucaults thinking is discussed in Alan D.Schrifts Nietzsches French legacy, The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, ed. by Bernd Magnus andKathleen M. Higgins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 323-355; especially 328.

37 See Sadi Irmaks remarks in his analysis [Zerdt Tercemesine dair Bir Ka Sz] at the end of the second

revised edition of his translation of only the First Book, Zerdt Dedi ki, Trkeye eviren Sadi Irmak, 2.Basl (stanbul: kbal Kitabevi, 1939): 98-116; for Irmaks suggestion as to the most preferable rendering ofbermensch in Turkish [nsandan stn,,], see p. 100.

38Bernd Magnus and Kathleen M. Higgins are quite correct in pointing out that, in spite of the enthusiasm forbermensch in popular imagination, this imagistic concept isnt discussed in detail even in Zarathustra, exceptfor the first speech in Zarathustras Prologue. See Nietzsches works and their themes, The CambridgeCompanion to Nietzsche: 40-42. There is, however, evidence from NietzschesNachla that the concept didnot completely drop off his agenda.

39 Martin Heidegger, Metafizik nedir?, tr. into Turkish by Mazhar evket and Suut Kemal Yetkin (stanbul:Vakit Matbaas, 1935). This original translation was recently reissued with minor changes in wording and with anew introductory essay, and consequently without the so-called Nachwort (1943) and Die Einleitung (1949)added by Heidegger himself to its later editions. [see: Metafizik nedir? (stanbul: Kakns Yaynlar, 1998):with a new introductory essay replacing the original one].

40 Most likely, the two translator/commentators were not informed of Heideggers ironic remarks in a FreiburgLecture (Summer Semester 1923) on Max Schelers metaphysical-anthropological perspective which was not inprint at the time. Cf. M. Heidegger, Ontologie (hermeneutic der Faktizitt) [GA 63] (Frankfurt am Main:Vittorio Klostermann, 1988): 24-26. / Ontology: The Hermeneutics of Facticity, tr. by John van Buren(Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1999): 19-23.

41This translation of Was ist Metaphysik?was later republished in a university journal of philosophy seminar[s]

in 1939, but without the learned introductory analysis found in the 1935 edition. Its language was now more

archaic as contrasted with the more Turkicised language of the earlier edition and merely prefaced by a short


17/19

for forcing the invention of strange neologisms which later fell out of usage. The push to purify

Turkish from so-called the pollution of foreign words was accompanied by a rather revolutionary

step of adopting the latin alphabet, something which has perplexed, even startled such German

emigr intellectuals and academicians as Erich Auerbach.42

However, it cannot be argued that, until the belated fury of translation of and commentary on

Heidegger in especially post-80s, nobody was interested either in this text or Heideggers way.43

Nevertheless, not entirely absent from the scene, Heideggers thought has not created any stir

among intellectual circles during the next two decades. Save few valuable exceptions,44 it largely

paragraph signed by the initials, M.. (Mazhar evket), simply mentioning Suut Kemal as the collaborator of the

earlier translation which is now republished after corrections and revisions. Metafizik Nedir?, Felsefe

Semineri Dergisi [stanbul niversitesi Yaynlar: 99, Edebiyat Fakltesi Felsefe Semineri], I (1939): 187-202.

42There is a degree of legitimacy in the reluctance of academicians of old style who were educated in ottomanlanguage and arabic script in adapting themselves to the sweeping reforms of the new regime. Erich Auerbach,then teaching in stanbul, summarized the situation in his correspondence with Walter Benjamin. Benjamin whomay have considered migrating to Turkey, wanted to know especially Auerbachs intellectual encounters in thiscountry. In a somewhat distressed letter dated Jan 3, 1937 Auerbach conveyed his judgement of such fast-pacedreforms as follows: Result: nationalism in the extreme accompanied by the simultaneous destruction of thehistorical national character. This picture, which in other countries like Germany, Italy, and even Russia (?) isnot visible for everyone to see: shows itself here in full nakedness....It is becoming increasingly clear to me thatthe present international situation is nothing but a ruse of providence, designed to lead us along a bloody andtortuous path to an International triviality and a culture of Esperanto. I have already suspected this in Germanyand Italy in view of the dreadful inauthenticity of the blood and soil propaganda, but only here has the evidenceof such a trend almost reached the point of certainty. Karlheinz Barck, Walter Benjamin and Erich Auerbach:Fragments of a Correspondence, Diacritics, XXII/3-4 (Fall-Winter 1992): 82.

43A later example is the translation of both Emil Steiger and Leo Spitzers debate with Martin Heidegger onMrikes poem, Auf eine Lampe in two separate letters which first appeared in a Zurich -based journal,Trivium; see. Heidegger-Staiger-Spitzer, Mrikenin Auf eine Lampe,, iiri zerine Tartma, tr. by FikretElpe (stanbul: n.d.) It is a known fact that Spitzer, coming to stanbul around 1933 -34, has lived and taught inTurkey briefly until 1936 during which he also wrote an article on problems of learning Turkish which wastranslated by Dozent Sebahattin Rahmi and appeared in three parts in the landmark Turkish literary journal,Varlk[Existence]. See, Leo Spitzer, Trkeyi renirken [Learning Turkish], Varlk, I. Cilt, No. 19 vd. Firstpart: 15 Nisan 1934, pp. 296-297; Second part: 15 Aralk 1934, pp. 163-164; Third part: 1 Ocak 1935, pp. 194-196. For further information about both Spitzers and Auerbachs careers in stanbul (though a meager account)and thereafter, see Harry Levin, TwoRomanisten in America: Spitzer and Auerbach, The IntellectualMigration: Europe and America, 1930-1960, ed. by Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1969): 463-484.

44 Two exceptions readily come to mind: First is Prof. Nusret Hzrs excellently written short articles on

Heidegger, Nietzsche, existentialism and related topics. See, Nusret Hzr, Felsefe Yazlar [PhilosophicalWritings] (stanbul: ada Yaynlar, 1976): especially, Martin Heidegger (73 -81), Varoluuluk bir Felsefemi? [Is Existentialism a Philosophy] (98-110), Gen Nietzsche [Young Nietzsche] (140-149). The otherexception is Prof. Hilmi Ziya lkens bookVarlk ve Olu [Being and Becoming] which is based upon hislectures on philosophies of existence and published late in the decade of sixties (Ankara: A. . lhiyat FakltesiYay., 1968). Unlike Prof. Hzr who was perfectly at home in German language and Bildung, Prof. lkenprimarily relies on sources in French and almost exclusively cites French translations of Nietzsches andHeideggers works available to him at the time. This creates a certain bias, however unwittingly, toward Frenchversions of existential philosophy with their emphasis upon subjective consciousness in discussing Nietzsche andHeidegger. On the other hand, lkens command of Islamic philosophy provides his readers with importantinsights as to the parallels between medieval and modern approaches to the question of existence. Apart from


18/19

bypassed the attention of the learned, something amazing given the vogue of French existentialism

among such strata.

What about today? The intellectual market is swamped by translations of and studies on the corpus

of both thinkers. While the translations are frequently made from translations into especially theEnglish language and not from German, there is a small but steadily increasing number of academic

writing on both thinkers. A full assessment of relevant literature, let alone a detailed comparative

analysis of texts in translation to find out if the wording is true to their spirit still awaits equally

spirited and meticulous work45 against the adversities of an increasingly standardized cultural market

wherein both thinkers offer valuable investment opportunities. Hence an ironic situation known

only-too-well, given the strong aversion of both thinkers toZivilisationsbetrieb and hollow essence

of the West.46 Moreover, it wouldnt be wrong to claim that the late nineteenth-century thinker

Ahmet Midhats contention concerning the solidity of Islamic thought vis--vis the weakening of

religious traditions both in then a very young America and still young Europe hasnt come to pass in

Turkeys intellectual life today. Such is the case in spite of religiously-oriented young scholars

growing interest in Heidegger (mostly via Gadamer). This phenomenon further lends support to

Heideggers crucial observation that in our age a religious thinker cannot ask the apparently useless

question, Warum ist berhauptSeiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?.47

these two important figureheads, we may also note among scattered examples a short article by Selahattin Hilavwhich first appeared in the journal Sek Dergisi in 1976: see Heidegger zerine [On Heidegger], reprinted inhis Felsefe Yazlar [Philosophical Writings] (stanbul: Yap Kredi Yaynlar, 1993): 214-215. From theperspective of then-current dialectical and historical materialism, Hilav finds much to criticize in Heideggerwhom he relegates to the camp of irrationalistes.

45 A notable analysis is by Doan zlem in his Introduction to: Martin Heidegger, Teknie likin Soruturma

[Die Frage nach der Technik], tr. from German by D. zlem (stanbul: Paradigma Yaynlar, 1995): Giri:Heidegger ve Teknik, 9-41. Other recent examples are: A. Kadir en, Martin Heidegger ve Doruluk,Kaan H. kten, Heideggerin Aristotelesteki Phronesis Kavramn Almlamas, both in Vehbi HackadiroluArmaan: Felsefe Tartmalar [Festschrift Vehbi Hackadirolu: Debates in Philosophy], ed. by Doanzlem, Hayrettin kesiz and kr Argn (stanbul: Everest Yaynlar, 2002): 161-179 and 300-351. Kaan H.kten, Heidegger Kitab [A Heidegger Companion] (stanbul: agorakitapl, 2004).There is not any translationof Heideggers works on Nietzsche, with the exception of Nietzsches Wort >Gott ist TotGott ist Tot


19/19

A period of enthusiasm which propelled the early tide of Nietzsche and Heidegger and having

prepared the ground for later periodic-conjunctural waves of translation and original study in Turkey

is now long over. But the task of thinking demands from any serious scholar in the face of the latest

market of ideas and its language of specialties under the hegemony of current mondialisation

and Kulturbetrieb, is to naturalize both thinkers at the home of Turkish in full alertness to ever-present danger of creating yet anotherGerede. Something of a frhliche Wissenschaft? Likely.

letting heidegger and nietzsche dwell in turkish

Documents