Heidegger’s philosophy has ties of various sorts with many of the philosophers you have read; but, as far as the content of the material you will read goes, the most apparent connection is with Hegel and Nietzsche. The editors’ introduction to Heidegger says something about the connection with Hegel and also will help provide a context for what you will read by discussing the concerns of Heidegger’s body of work as a whole and the specific concerns of this particular work.
You should be a little wary as you read Heidegger. His aim is often to criticize certain views taken for granted in previous philosophers. In the course of doing so he explores the rationales for a number of views that are not his own, and the places where he goes on to criticize these views may not be as obvious, so he can seem to be advancing positions that he really doesn’t agree with.
On HK 651, Heidegger mentions a painting (“the one by Van Gogh that represents a pair of peasant shoes”) and such a painting is discussed at some length at a crucial point in your assignment (HK 663-666). Although Heidegger speaks as if he had a specific painting in mind, it isn’t entirely clear which one it is (since, as he notes, Van Gogh produced many paintings of old shoes). The best candidate seems to be the one reproduced at this URL:
http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/%7Erwj1/van/097.html
This painting was in an exhibition (in 1930) where Heidegger said he had seen the painting that he wrote about five years later. However, it has been argued that this is not a painting of peasant shoes at all but rather of Van Gogh’s own.
I have distributed the assignments through the work in such a way that you will cover the assignments for each day if you the whole work in two installments, and the reading guides will address the whole of it. But our discussions will focus on only certain portions of the work, and the page assignments in the header reflect this. The portions of the comments below that do not apply to the passages I’ve assigned appear in lighter and smaller type.
• The first few pages (HK 650-653) form an introduction. Take what Heidegger says about circling (HK 651) seriously since it is reflected in some of his organization: the goals of his discussions are sometimes reached by what initially appears to be a digression.
• Things (HK 653-662). In a way, this is a survey of metaphysics since Plato, but don’t think of it chronologically. Heidegger’s descriptions of both the first and the last of the three thing-concepts use key terminology from Aristotle while his description of the second uses terminology from Kant.
• Substance/accident and subject/predicate (HK 654-657) Heidegger’s comments on the translation of Greek into Latin (HK 655) are more than an interesting digression; they raise a broader issue about history that Heidegger will return to later in the case of art works.
• Unity of a manifold of sensation (HK 657-658). Heidegger doesn’t speak of art in this brief discussion, but the appearance of the term aistheton (HK 657) might suggest that there could be a connection between this thing-concept and certain aesthetic theories.
• Formed matter (HK 658-661). Heidegger has Aristotle in mind here but not only him. The ideas of usefulness and equipment that are introduced beginning on HK 659 will be developed in their own right in the next part of the discussion.
• Equipment (HK 662-665—from “This exertion of thought …”). Pay special attention to the two somewhat poetic paragraphs on HK 664. Not only are they crucial for the next few pages, they introduce and foreshadow ideas (especially the ideas of “world” and “earth”) that will be central topics later in this assignment.
• Truth at work (HK 665-668) Think about the idea of truth setting itself to work (HK 666); it is perhaps the most central idea in the piece and will reappear a number of times. Notice that Heidegger summarizes his discussion up to this point beginning at the middle of HK 667. (One view Heidegger presents but does not accept is the idea that art reproduces a general essence, HK 666f; this might remind you of Schopenhauer.)
• The self-subsistence of a work (HK 669-670). Although this serves as an introduction to Heidegger’s discussion of the way truth happens in a work, its discussion of withdrawal and decay points to topics discussed in the third part of the essay. Its chief significance for what follows immediately lies in showing that the self-subsistence of a work depends on its relations.
• World and earth (HK 670-677). By this point you’ve seen several examples of Heidegger’s readiness to forge new philosophical vocabulary in the way a poet might. You should regard the terms “world” and “earth,” too, in this way; although they draw their meanings in part from more ordinary uses, you should be alert to the special way Heidegger uses them. In particular, notice their connection to the role of a work of art in a culture and the material from which it is formed (e.g., stone or paint).
• A Greek temple (HK 670-672—from “Where does a work belong? …”). You can be sure that Heidegger is aware of Hegel’s discussion of the Greek temple (HK 439f) and it is worth comparing the two; but bear in mind that Heidegger uses the example for a purpose rather different from Hegel’s. In particular, Heidegger will make no attempt to employ Hegel’s distinctions among the symbolic, classical, and romantic arts.
• Setting up a world (HK 672-673). Although Heidegger would probably not endorse the term, much of what he describes in connection with the idea of a “world” could also be put under the rubric of “culture.” For a further example, reread his reflection on Van Gogh’s painting (HK 664) where the term “world” also appeared.
• Setting forth the earth (HK 674-675). Heidegger offered an initial characterization of “earth” already on HK 671 (as well as using this term, too, in his discussion of Van Gogh’s painting). Think about the phrase “setting forth” in connection with his efforts to distinguish earth from material that is used up, perishes, or disappears in equipment.
• Repose as striving (HK 675-677—to “… in the intimacy of striving”). Heidegger doesn’t think of the relation between world and earth as a contradiction, but there are definite relations between what he says here and Schelling’s idea of the work of art as the resolution of a contradiction. Be sure to think your way into the conflict between world and earth; it will provide the basis for an important idea in the final part of the essay.