Works › Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event)
Work #1616 · Middle (Kehre) period

Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event)

Heidegger's 1936-38 'Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)' — the second magnum opus, published posthumously 1989

Martin Heidegger · 1936-38 (published posthumously 1989) · German · Esoteric philosophical treatise (esoteric Denkweg)

Tradition: Heideggerian phenomenology / late-Heideggerian philosophy of the event / fundamental ontology

Heidegger's 1936-38 'Beiträge zur Philosophie' — the second magnum opus, the philosophy of the event after the Kehre

Composed 1936-38 but kept private and published only posthumously in 1989 (as volume 65 of the Gesamtausgabe), 'Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)' is Heidegger's second magnum opus after Being and Time (1927). The work — six 'fugues' on the philosophy of the event (Ereignis): Anklang (Echo), Zuspiel (Interplay), Sprung (Leap), Gründung (Grounding), Die Zu-künftigen (The Ones to Come), Der letzte Gott (The Last God) — articulates the post-Kehre Heideggerian programme in deliberately esoteric, fugal-musical form. The Beiträge are the principal text for understanding Heidegger's middle-period transformation: from the existential-analytic of Dasein in Being and Time toward the 'thinking of being' (Seinsdenken) of the late Heidegger. Central concepts include Ereignis (the appropriative event of being), Seyn (a deliberately archaic spelling of 'being' meant to distinguish it from the metaphysically-loaded 'Sein'), Lichtung-Verbergung (the clearing-and-concealing structure of disclosure), and the 'last god' as the figure of religious-philosophical transition. The text was published as part of the Gesamtausgabe controversy over Heidegger's Nazi-period thinking; the Schwarze Hefte (Black Notebooks, 2014-) revealed the extent of his antisemitism and complicated subsequent reception of the Beiträge.

Author

Editions cited

  • Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), Gesamtausgabe Bd. 65 (Klostermann, Frankfurt, 1989; 2nd ed. 1994)
  • First English trans. Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning) (Indiana University Press, 1999)
  • Revised English trans. Richard Rojcewicz and Daniela Vallega-Neu, Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event) (Indiana, 2012)
  • Commentaries: Daniela Vallega-Neu, Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy: An Introduction (Indiana, 2003); Richard Polt, The Emergency of Being (Cornell, 2006)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Phenomenology · 22%
Existentialism · 14%
Mysticism · 14%
Postmodernism · 12%
Historicism · 18%
Continental Philosophy · 8%
Phenomenology 22%

Defining middle-period Heideggerian-phenomenological work.

"The philosophy of the event (Ereignis)." (Beiträge, fugue I)
Existentialism 14%

Continuing existentialist-phenomenological background.

"Dasein in the event of being." (Beiträge)
Mysticism 14%

Heideggerian quasi-mystical register on Ereignis.

"The event of being's truth." (Beiträge, fugue VI on the 'last god')
Postmodernism 12%

Major source for later post-structuralist Heidegger reception.

"Reading of the Beiträge in French post-structuralism." (Reception)
Historicism 18%

Strong historicist-destinal philosophy of being.

"The history of being as event." (Beiträge, fugue III)
Continental Philosophy 8%

Continental-philosophical tradition.

Internal Tensions

Heidegger's second magnum opus; principal text of the post-Being-and-Time Kehre. Its esoteric form has invited extensive scholarly controversy: some (Krell, Polt, Vallega-Neu) read it as Heidegger's most demanding philosophical work; others (Sheehan, Faye) see it as evasive in its relation to Heidegger's Nazi-period thinking, which the 2014- Black Notebooks confirmed.

⧖

I. Time

1936-38 composition during the Nazi period; 1989 posthumous publication. The Beiträge are temporally framed by the rise of Nazism (which Heidegger initially supported) and the period of his withdrawal from active political engagement.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Freiburg / Black Forest (Todtnauberg hut). The text's fugal-musical structure deliberately resists ordinary academic-philosophical discursive space.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Esoteric philosophical treatise — Heidegger's most demanding and least systematic text. The Beiträge consist of 281 numbered sections grouped into six 'fugues' plus prelude and afterword.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Middle Heidegger (Kehre period). The Beiträge mark the transition between the early Heidegger of Being and Time and the late Heidegger of the Bremen Lectures and 'On the Way to Language'.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Impersonal
⚡

V. Energy

Esoteric-Denkweg energies. Heidegger himself said the Beiträge could not be published in his lifetime because the public could not be expected to read them adequately; the text is composed as preparation for a possible 'other beginning' of Western thinking.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Posthumous magnum opus of 281 numbered sections. The work introduces the central post-Kehre vocabulary (Ereignis, Seyn, Lichtung-Verbergung, das letzte Gott, die Zu-künftigen) that recurs across Heidegger's later writings.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Martin Heidegger Hans-Georg Gadamer Jacques Derrida

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

94%
Martin Heidegger
32/34
90%
Carneades
9/10
85%
Walter Benjamin
29/34
82%
Achille Mbembe
28/34
82%
Desmond Tutu
28/34
82%
Frantz Fanon
28/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

61%
Phenomenology
20/26
61%
Relationalism
19/26
61%
Relativism
18/26
60%
Academic Scepticism
19/26
60%
Cybernetics
19/26
60%
Kantian Transcendental Idealism
20/26
58%
Pyrrhonism
18/26
58%
Continental Philosophy
19/26

How Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event) resolves each dilemma

31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 6 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 26 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
On this view, the cosmos has limits; the obligation to future people is real but cannot exceed what the limits allow. The categorical worry about owing the impossible doesn't arise: the limits bound the asking. Ethics within a created or bounded order is the only …
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible. (15%)
6 mainstream positions
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69% How much weight do future people deserve? Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. 47% Is regret rational? The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. 47% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. 47%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
On this view, the physical world is real enough — it has its own laws, its own conservation principles, its own resistance to wish — but it is not the floor of being. It is sustained by something else: mind, divine attention, computational substrate, or …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (55%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%) · Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
On this view, matter doesn't have standing on its own; it has standing through what it makes possible. Soil matters because it grows food; water matters because it sustains life and mind and practice. Asking whether the rock as such has moral standing slightly misreads …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (55%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%) · Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated. (4%)
4 mainstream positions
What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? — — Are the dead morally present to the living? — — Are there indivisible units of experience? — — Can prayer for someone far away affect them? — — Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? — — Could an AI have a mind that matters? — — Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? — — Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? — — Does history have a direction or meaning? — — Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? — — Does prayer change God's mind? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? — — Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? — — Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? — — Is memory stored or reconstructed? — — Is reality fundamentally digital? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — Should we colonize space? — — What happens to "you" when you die? — — What is our place in nature? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — What makes someone the same person over time? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. 51% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. 51% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. 51% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. 51%
← #1615 Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics All Works #1617 Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology →