Shadows of Being: Encounters with Heidegger in Political Theory and Historical Reflection tests Heidegger’s claim to have restored philosophy to what is genuinely fundamental by submitting that claim to the tribunal of ethico-political judgment and historically situated reflection, rather than allowing it to rest on Heidegger’s own self-interpretation. Jeffrey Andrew Barash’s contribution lies in a methodical usurpation of the Seinsfrage (the “question of Being”) from a self-authorizing philosophical axis into an object of critique whose validity is measured by what it enables and what it disables in the comprehension of political coexistence, responsibility, and the reality of the historical past. The book’s architecture, explicitly composed from independently written studies later rewritten into a single argumentative orbit, becomes part of the evidence for its thesis.
The work opens from a precise historical-philosophical scene: an early Heideggerian verdict on the “wrong turn” of contemporary thought, a verdict that already presupposes a criterion for distinguishing the fundamental from the incidental. Barash treats this presupposition neither as a mere rhetorical flourish nor as a biographical curiosity. It functions as a methodological promissory note: if thought can legitimately criticize an epoch for missing the path of what matters most, then thought must also be capable of accounting for the very standard by which “most” is discerned. The book’s guiding interrogation therefore concerns a double movement. First, Heidegger’s reorientation of philosophy toward the Seinsfrage presents itself as a radical clarification of what makes any understanding possible. Second, the same reorientation, precisely in its aspiration to ultimacy, risks installing a new dogmatism at the level where critique should be most vigilant: the level at which the very criteria for relevance, responsibility, and historical meaning are tacitly set. Barash’s inquiry proceeds by insisting that the fundamental, if it deserves the name, must illuminate the conditions of human coexistence in a common world and must sustain a credible relation to historical experience as it is lived, remembered, narrated, judged, suffered, and transformed.
This insistence already signals the book’s manner of philosophical “encounter.” The encounter is not organized as reverent exposition followed by external moral condemnation. It is organized as a sustained immanent test: Heidegger’s claims are tracked through their operative consequences, through the exclusions they require, through the asymmetries they naturalize, and through the historical commitments they authorize when their conceptual logic is translated into a stance toward politics and history. Barash repeatedly returns to a decisive methodological posture articulated early in the framing: any adequate critique of Heidegger’s legacy requires an independent vantage point that departs from Heidegger’s strategy of interpretation and self-interpretation, because that strategy is itself part of what is under scrutiny. This departure is executed neither by abandoning the philosophical register of Heidegger’s questions nor by reducing them to sociology. The book develops a third posture: philosophical fidelity to the seriousness of the Seinsfrage, paired with systematic refusal of its privilege to dictate what counts as serious.
The book’s first large tension can be stated as follows. Heidegger’s early analytic of Dasein (the human mode of being understood as being-there, i.e., existing in a world) identifies finitude as the decisive horizon for understanding meaning and truth. The force of this analytic derives from its capacity to show how everyday reliance on public interpretations, stable norms, and supposedly universal truths can serve as a flight from the anxiety of mortality. Yet the same analytic, by construing authenticity through a singularizing confrontation with death and by treating ethical and political determinations as “ontic” accretions that would “contaminate” the fundamental level, tends to suspend precisely those shared, intersubjective, institutionally mediated structures within which responsibility and judgment acquire determinacy. The book develops this tension less as an accusation than as an internal problem of grounding. When a philosophy claims to clarify the foundation of meaning, its own partition between “foundational” and “secondary” becomes a deed with consequences. Barash’s question concerns the deed’s direction: does it make possible a more lucid grasp of political and historical reality, or does it foster a refined incapacity to account for the very norms it cannot help presupposing?
This internal problem is elaborated with particular sharpness through Barash’s handling of Heidegger’s effort to separate ontology from ethics and politics. The book’s argument does not content itself with observing that Heidegger wrote little explicit political theory in Being and Time. It reconstructs the conceptual rationale for that scarcity and tests its coherence. Heidegger’s avoidance of ethical-theological interpretations of conscience, and his construal of the call of conscience as recalling Dasein to its ownmost self in a way that “creates no relations,” is treated as philosophically decisive because it frames authenticity as a relation to oneself under the sign of death, rather than as a relation that is originally constituted through shared obligations and public norms. Barash’s critical move is precise: he reads the very gesture of “purifying” ontology of ethical-political content as an ethical-political decision with determinate implications. The claim that ethical and political constraints belong to a merely ontic level is not a neutral descriptive claim; it amounts to a stance regarding what can legitimately bind human beings, and on what basis. Once this stance is in place, the question of arbitrariness appears with renewed force: if fundamental orientation is secured through a confrontation with the “nothing of the world,” if worldly affairs impose no internal limits upon ontological judgment, then the resources for distinguishing resoluteness from fanaticism weaken at the very point where the philosophy seeks maximal rigor.
The book’s strategy for rendering this weakness visible is to juxtapose Heidegger’s analytic with interpretative possibilities that Heidegger’s approach excludes. This is exemplified in Barash’s sustained engagement with theological sources and their philosophical afterlives, especially through the prism of Pauline and Reformation motifs that informed Heidegger’s early Freiburg lectures and that continue to resonate, transposed, within the existential analytic. The point is not to re-theologize Heidegger, and Barash explicitly avoids treating the philosophy as a disguised confession. The point is to clarify the structural affinity between a world-negating orientation and an ontology that grants privilege to a singularizing rupture with worldly significance. In such a configuration, the evacuation of ethical-political bindingness becomes intelligible as a transformation of a religiously inflected gesture into a philosophical criterion of authenticity: a movement that retains the pathos of radical seriousness while relinquishing the doctrinal structures that once oriented and constrained it.
At this stage, Barash’s method exhibits a recurrent form. He takes a Heideggerian conceptual claim that appears purely formal—an ontological partition, an account of truth, a diagnosis of metaphysics—and follows it into the domains it declares secondary. The result is an inversion of the usual hierarchy: the supposedly “secondary” domains of ethics, politics, and historical practice become the arenas in which the adequacy of the allegedly “fundamental” claim is decided. The book thereby reconfigures what it means to read Heidegger critically. Critique becomes neither moralizing dismissal nor scholastic correction. Critique becomes a reconstruction of the tacit conditions of applicability of Heideggerian concepts: the conditions under which they help interpret experience, and the conditions under which they deform it.
This reconstructive procedure is extended into the field that gives the book one of its distinctive tonalities: memory and the historical past. Barash’s long-standing preoccupation with collective memory does not enter as an external thematic import; it functions as a privileged test case for Heidegger’s understanding of historicity. If Heidegger criticizes modern historical consciousness and the human sciences for presupposing universal validity, objectivity, and a stable “world time,” the critique carries a promise: it claims to disclose a more originary relation to the past grounded in the temporal structure of existence. Yet Barash urges that the criteria by which modern historical knowledge is criticized cannot be measured solely by their metaphysical pedigree. They must be measured by whether they allow historical experience to appear in its reality, including its social mediation, its institutional stabilization, and its political contestation.
Here Heidegger’s diagnosis of modernity is seen as a culmination of metaphysics, and his contention that modern “rationalization” fosters an illusion of mastery over historical transformation, does indeed expose an important hubris: the belief that method alone can govern history’s movement. Yet Heidegger’s alternative tends to displace the question of historical meaning from a domain where human beings remain accountable—through judgment, action, and institution-building—into a domain where meaning is attributed to an overarching history of Being (Seinsgeschichte), conceived as a destiny whose articulation lies beyond human agency. The book’s central claim is not that Heidegger simply denies agency. The claim is that the mode of explanation in which Being “sends” epochs of truth, while humans “belong” to these sendings, generates a new kind of historical opacity: an opacity that can immunize itself against refutation by experience, since experience itself is re-described as an effect of the sending. Barash treats this immunization as philosophically consequential because it transforms the very notion of historical learning. Learning from catastrophe, learning from political failure, learning from the disclosure of injustice, all require that experience can function as a constraint on interpretation. A theory that absorbs constraints as moments within an all-encompassing destiny risks neutralizing what gives historical reflection its normative urgency.
This risk becomes acute when the book moves into the dark historical zone of Heidegger’s political engagement and the philosophical elaborations of the 1930s and 1940s. Barash is careful to avoid a simplistic causal claim that ontology “caused” political allegiance. His analysis rather clarifies a structural consonance between a philosophy that depreciates public political reflection and an attraction to forms of decision that claim legitimacy through destiny, historical necessity, or the promise of a new beginning. The book’s handling of dictatorship, myth, and catastrophe proceeds with a distinctive sobriety. It does not reduce Heidegger to slogans; it does not treat the later thought as mere apology. It tracks how conceptual motifs are reconfigured: the shift from fundamental ontology to a history of Being, the re-description of modernity as a planetary domination of technology, the reinterpretation of political movements as symptoms within a long arc of metaphysical errancy.
A key site where these reconfigurations concentrate is the theme of myth. Barash’s analysis of Heidegger’s mythological vocabulary shows how the term “myth” oscillates between an “originary” sense tied to Greek experience of truth as unconcealment and a contemporary sense tied to ideological re-enchantment within technological modernity. The oscillation is not treated as a terminological accident. It reveals an instability in the status of narrative and symbol within Heidegger’s historical thought. On one side, myth appears as a primordial disclosure, a way in which a people can be gathered into a truth that exceeds calculative representation. On the other side, myth appears as a modern technique of power, a compensatory enchantment produced in response to disenchantment. Barash’s critical point emerges from the conjunction: when Heidegger describes modernity’s essence as a technological ordering and treats political myth as an eruption within that ordering, he tends to interpret even ideological distortion as a moment within the same overarching logic of metaphysical destiny. This interpretive breadth yields explanatory power while it also fosters fatalism: the sense that political outcomes, including catastrophes, belong to an unfolding that human responsibility can scarcely redirect.
The book’s treatment of “catastrophe” develops this fatalism into an explicit philosophical problem. Catastrophes—above all the Second World War—enter as events that should test any philosophy of history by confronting it with the extremities of violence and the limits of meaning. Barash reconstructs how Heidegger interprets war within the framework of the history of Being and shows how this interpretation tends to integrate war into a narrative of metaphysical culmination. The problem is not that Heidegger speaks of history in large categories. The problem concerns the ethical-political price of the integration. When catastrophe is interpreted as a disclosure of the essence of modernity, and when the essence is treated as a destiny beyond human making, then catastrophe’s claim upon judgment becomes ambiguous. Judgment requires that catastrophe be both intelligible and condemnable in determinate ways; it requires that the attribution of meaning does not dissolve responsibility into destiny.
This problem is sharpened in Barash’s analysis of race and the more recent publication of the Black Notebooks. The book does not treat the question of race as an external scandal appended to a philosophical system that remains intact. It treats it as a decisive locus where the pretension to a purely fundamental level of thought confronts its own susceptibility to “credulity and prejudice,” to use a vocabulary Barash develops in his engagement with alternative traditions of critique. What matters is not solely the presence of offensive remarks; what matters is the manner in which a philosophical framework can absorb and rationalize such remarks through its own conceptual economy. The history of Being, construed as an all-encompassing process that reconciles apparently incompatible moments as phases of a single destiny, becomes capable of assimilating ideological content without allowing historical or moral rebuttal to reach the level where the framework itself is questioned. Barash’s argument thereby connects the ethical-political stakes of interpretation with the epistemic structure of the theory: a theory that diminishes the authority of empirical-historical refutation and that privileges destiny over accountability can provide a hospitable space for biases whose contestation depends upon precisely the forms of refutation that the theory depreciates.
The transition from the first part of the book to the second is not merely an editorial division between “Heidegger” and “reception.” It performs a conceptual displacement that the book’s framing invites the reader to register. The first part develops an internal critique of Heidegger’s claims by following their consequences into domains of politics, myth, and history. The second part repeats the test through the philosophical labor of thinkers for whom Heidegger’s originality was undeniable and for whom the political and historical stakes were unavoidable. This repetition functions as a methodological deepening. Instead of continuing to argue against Heidegger from a single critical standpoint, Barash allows the critique to be refracted through divergent conceptual vocabularies—public world, symbolic forms, ethical transcendence, historical attestation—each of which reconfigures what counts as fundamental.
Hannah Arendt’s presence in the book exemplifies this refraction. Barash reconstructs Arendt’s ambivalent relation to Heidegger: appreciation for the breakthrough of being-in-the-world, coupled with insistence that Heidegger’s analysis depreciates the political dimension of human existence. The argument develops beyond the familiar claim that Arendt “adds politics” to an existential analytic. Barash’s thesis is more radical. Arendt’s concept of the public world is not an ontic supplement to ontology; it is a condition for addressing the philosophical problem of truth itself. Without political reflection, Arendt holds that philosophy continues the ancient tradition of withdrawing truth from the polis, thereby missing the ways in which truth’s stability depends upon a shared world that can be sustained only through political action and judgment. Barash’s analysis thereby relocates the “fundamental” once again. Heidegger’s critique of universal validity in the human sciences becomes intelligible as a symptom of a deeper difficulty: the fragility of common sense and the vulnerability of factual truth in modern mass society. The “darkening” of the public realm, a phrase Heidegger used in a critical register, becomes in Arendt’s hands an index of a historical crisis with philosophical consequences.
This Arendtian juncture has a decisive consequence for Barash’s overarching evaluation. Heidegger’s suspicion toward universality and objectivity can be read as a profound insight into the temptations of inauthenticity and the metaphysical residues of modern science. Yet Arendt’s reflection suggests that the criterion of truth cannot be secured by a solitary confrontation with finitude; it requires a worldly space in which factuality, testimony, remembrance, and judgment acquire durability through shared recognition. The philosophical tradition that separates truth from politics thereby undermines the very worldly conditions that make truth’s bindingness possible. Heidegger, in Arendt’s reading as reconstructed by Barash, participates in the culmination of that tradition even when he seeks to overcome it. The result is a paradoxical inheritance: a philosophy that unmasked metaphysical pretensions to timeless truth while remaining incapable of grounding a truth that can appear as authentic and as publicly shareable.
The second refraction occurs through the Cassirer–Levinas debate, framed by the Davos debate and later retrospections. Barash treats Davos as more than an event in intellectual history. It becomes a symbolic condensation of the book’s central conflict between a philosophy oriented by existential finitude and a philosophy oriented by the mediations of symbol, culture, and ethical universality. The debate’s afterlife, including Levinas’s later remorse and Habermas’s provocative interpretation of Cassirer’s “impotence,” is used as a diagnostic instrument. Barash does not aim to adjudicate a “winner” by rhetorical standards. He instead reconstructs what a “victory” would mean philosophically: whether the victorious position can sustain a conception of responsibility and political judgment that does not collapse into destiny, whether it can acknowledge finitude while preserving the binding force of principles such as justice and equity.
Cassirer’s role in this reconstruction is strategically important for Barash’s critique of Heidegger. Cassirer’s emphasis on symbolic mediation and cultural forms preserves a continuity of meaning across historical discontinuities without requiring that continuity to be reduced to an existential structure of singular mortality. Barash’s critical point is not that Cassirer provides a complete alternative to Heidegger. It is that Cassirer’s attention to the symbolic space through which human beings communicate reveals a level of historical finitude that Heidegger’s analytic tends to under-describe: the finitude that belongs to intersubjective temporalities, to the “in-between” that constitutes a shared world, to the layered simultaneities and non-simultaneities through which historical experience is articulated. This theme later converges with Barash’s discussion of historiography and the reality of the past, and it prepares the ground for the book’s culmination in Ricœur and Koselleck.
Levinas enters this exchange as both witness and transformer. Barash’s analysis is careful to avoid an anachronistic simplification of Levinas as the ethical antidote to Heidegger. The encounter is more intricate. Levinas’s thought bears traces of Heideggerian insights into temporality and finitude, and it also reorients these insights toward an ethical transcendence that resists absorption into ontological destiny. This reorientation is staged in Barash’s discussion of myth, especially through the motif of “gods without faces.” The faceless gods of paganism symbolize an impersonal elementality that can enthrall enjoyment and separation; their death opens toward a transcendence in which the face of the other appears as an irreducible ethical demand. Barash’s interest lies less in theological doctrine than in the structure of obligation: a demand that does not derive from an arche, from a foundational cultural or metaphysical ground, and that therefore resists being instrumentalized by political theology. In this configuration, the ethical claim has an “an-archic” character: it binds without presenting itself as a mythic destiny that could authorize violence in the name of a historical mission.
Through this Levinasian motif, Barash returns—by a different path—to his persistent concern with Heidegger’s separation of ontology and ethics. The separation, originally claimed in the name of philosophical rigor, appears in Levinas’s critique as the site where ontology risks indifference toward the other. Barash’s account does not reduce Heidegger’s thought to immorality; it elucidates the conditions under which an ontology can become ethically mute while remaining conceptually powerful. The book thereby clarifies a subtle danger: the capacity of an influential philosophical discourse to generate seriousness, depth, and radicality while leaving unanswered the question of how this seriousness is to be translated into the concrete norms that govern coexistence. The vacuum left by such muteness can be filled by mythological visions, political destinies, or charismatic decisions, precisely because the philosophy has weakened the conceptual authority of publicly shareable principles.
The final major refraction is provided by Paul Ricœur and the problem of the reality of the historical past. Here the book reaches a point where earlier themes—truth, public world, symbol, memory, destiny—are gathered into a methodological confrontation with contemporary historical skepticism. Ricœur’s engagement with skepticism about historiography, including the tendency to treat historical narratives as rhetorical constructions or “verbal fictions,” is reconstructed as a struggle to preserve the possibility of attestation: the claim that historical discourse can refer to what actually existed. Barash’s interest in Ricœur is not antiquarian. Ricœur becomes a decisive test for Heidegger’s legacy because the Heideggerian critique of objectivity and universal validity has often been read as licensing precisely the suspicion that historical truth is a construct without binding reference. Ricœur’s “Heideggerian turn,” as Barash presents it, involves learning from Heidegger about the temporal conditions of understanding while refusing to dissolve historical reality into existential projection or into linguistic destiny.
This is the point at which the book’s earlier focus on the human sciences returns with transformed significance. Heidegger’s opposition to contextual methods of historical understanding, and his displacement of ideas and concepts by the embodiment of language as “the house of Being,” is acknowledged as profoundly influential. Yet the influence bears an ambivalence that Barash traces with care. On one side, attention to language and to epochal discontinuities can protect historical reflection from naive presentism and from the illusion of total mastery. On the other side, a conception of language as the site where Being’s sending fractures history into epochs can weaken the resources needed to reconstruct continuity, responsibility, and the intermediary symbolic space that sustains shared worlds. The book draws this point into a sharp methodological conclusion through Koselleck’s critique: the times of history are constituted inter-humanly, as simultaneities of the unsimultaneous, and they possess a finitude irreducible to the existential modalities of singular Dasein. Barash’s use of this critique is not merely supportive citation. It functions as a final specification of what “fundamental” must mean if it is to remain accountable to historical reality: it must make intelligible the finitude of shared temporal structures, the durability and fragility of institutions, and the symbolic resonances through which past orders illuminate present situations.
Across these refractions, the book’s inner movement becomes clearer: the initial focus on Heidegger’s promise of fundamentality gradually yields to an increasingly explicit question about the conditions of judgment. Early analyses uncover how Heidegger’s ontology, by singularizing authenticity and depreciating public norms, strains the conceptual basis for ethical-political bindingness. Subsequent analyses of the later thought show how the history of Being amplifies this strain into a fatalistic vision that can absorb political events, including catastrophes, into a destiny that denies human responsibility for the future course of history. The reception analyses then displace the center of gravity further. Arendt shifts the locus of truth into the shared world of political action and factual stability. Cassirer highlights the mediations of symbol and culture as conditions for meaningful continuity. Levinas articulates an ethical transcendence that binds without mythic authorization. Ricœur insists on attestation and the referential claim of historical discourse. Each displacement yields a new standpoint from which Heidegger’s claim to fundamentality appears increasingly problematic, and each standpoint also reveals something that Heidegger’s project genuinely discovered: the fragility of metaphysical assurances, the finitude underlying claims to timeless truth, the historicity of meaning, and the susceptibility of modernity to illusions of mastery.
Barash’s concluding framework returns explicitly to the opening stake: distinguishing the fundamental from the incidental. The conclusion does not offer a tidy verdict; it offers a criterion. The fundamental is what proves appropriate for interpreting human historical experience and for revealing a meaningfulness that remains obscure when ethico-political conditions of coexistence are ignored. This criterion yields two principal judgments, corresponding to Heidegger’s early and later periods, and the book’s entire movement can be read as an elaboration of the warrants for these judgments.
Concerning the early period, Barash’s central claim is that Heidegger’s attempt to ground meaning in Dasein’s finite choices, while powerful in its critique of metaphysical permanence, fails to account for the continuity of the conditions of political coexistence. Principles such as justice and equity do not arise merely from singular ontological decisions; they function as anthropological prerequisites for viable common life, even as their concrete articulation demands historical rethinking. The quasi-absence of an account of authentic community in Being and Time thereby appears as a symptom of a deeper aporia: an ontology oriented by singularization struggles to render intelligible the normative structures that bind human beings together and that stabilize a common world.
Concerning the later period, the critique becomes sharper because the displacement of the question of the Seinsfrage into Seinsgeschichte intensifies the risk already present. The history of Being, construed as a process beyond human choice, fosters a fatalism that denies responsibility for the future course of history and that can produce weighty political consequences precisely by inspiring belief. Barash’s invocation of the Jonas-inspired argument about self-fulfilling prophecy is crucial here, because it transforms fatalism from a theoretical posture into a practical danger: a worldview that renounces responsibility increases the probability of the outcomes it claims to foresee. The book thereby closes the circle between metaphysics and politics. The question of Being is not merely a speculative pursuit; it sets conditions for what can be judged, for what can be resisted, for what can be owned as responsibility.
What renders the work’s form philosophically significant is that it stages these conclusions through a composition that mirrors the phenomenon it analyzes. The chapters, written independently over decades and later rewritten into a whole, retain a certain autonomy; this autonomy allows each inquiry to press Heidegger from a different angle. Yet the rewritten unity produces a cumulative displacement: themes that begin as methodological questions about historical science become, through successive encounters, questions about political truth, symbolic mediation, ethical obligation, and historical reality. The book’s title, Shadows of Being, becomes intelligible in this movement. “Being” casts shadows into politics, myth, race, catastrophe, and historiography. These shadows are neither mere distortions nor simple effects; they are zones where the promise of fundamentality encounters its limits. Barash’s achievement lies in treating the shadows as epistemic evidence. In these dim regions—where public worlds darken, where myths re-enchant, where catastrophes resist integration, where historical pastness demands attestation—the adequacy of a philosophy’s claim to fundamentality is decided.
The book’s compositional self-understanding is itself a methodological datum: it presents ten studies written independently across roughly three decades, subsequently reworked so that their separate argumentative architectures enter a single, recomposed trajectory whose governing question concerns what warrants the title “fundamental” in philosophical interpretation, once that title is tested by its consequences for political judgment and for reflection on historical meaning. The result is a deliberately tension-bearing inquiry into Heidegger’s promise, announced against the background of his early verdict on the “wrong turn” of contemporary philosophy, to retrieve an original path of thought through the Seinsfrage (the question of Being), coupled with an insistence that the meaning of this promise becomes legible only where it collides with the requirements of responsibility, public worldliness, and the intelligibility of the historical past.
When one follows the book’s sequence, one sees that its unity is neither a unity of topic in the sense of a single problem repeatedly redescribed, nor a unity of doctrine in the sense of a stable thesis gradually fortified, but a unity of displacing the questions: each interpretive gain exacts a cost that later analyses render visible, and each critical correction generates a further question concerning the conditions under which that correction can claim validity. The guiding thought is that Heidegger’s critique of his predecessors and contemporaries, even where it demonstrates real diagnostic power, imports a strategy of philosophical self-authorization that functions as both method and symptom. Barash reconstructs how this strategy elevates the Seinsfrage to an architectonic principle that assigns subordinate rank to other forms of inquiry, including those inquiries—historical reconstruction, social analysis, ethical deliberation, political judgment—that might otherwise serve as checks on the adequacy of the fundamental claim. The critical point is not that such subordination is conceptually impossible, since many systematic philosophies have sought architectonic unity, but that this particular subordination, as practiced, tends to immunize itself against the forms of refutation that belong to the domains it demotes. The book’s own strategy, explicitly announced, consists in establishing an independent vantage point from which omissions and biases become determinable, precisely because that vantage point does not accept Heidegger’s internal ranking of what counts as philosophically decisive.
This independence does not mean exteriority in the sense of a sociology of reception or an inventory of influences. Barash remains predominantly inside Heidegger’s textual field—broadly construed to include the course lectures and materials whose publication has altered the horizon of interpretation—and he treats reception not as a secondary history of effects but as a locus where the adequacy of Heidegger’s fundamental claims can be probed under pressure. What emerges is a distinctive form of immanent-heteronomous critique: immanent, because it tracks how Heidegger’s own categories generate consequences; heteronomous, because the criteria of adequacy are allowed to arise from the demands of political coexistence and historical intelligibility rather than from Heidegger’s own self-characterization of thought. In this respect, the book’s outer frame—its opening insistence that one cannot accept Heidegger “at his word,” and its concluding attempt to specify a “touchstone” for fundamentality—operates as a methodological envelope that constrains every local analysis while also being revised by them.
The touchstone announced at the end—appropriateness for interpreting human historical experience in a way that elucidates ethico-political conditions of coexistence in a common world—does not function as an external moralism applied after the fact. It functions as a criterion of philosophical meaningfulness in the strict sense: whether an interpretation of Being, time, truth, or history can disclose a sense that proves itself in the medium where human beings act together, judge, remember, and assume responsibility. The book thereby relocates the very meaning of “fundamental” away from a purely ontological privilege and toward a philosophical capacity to illuminate the conditions under which sense is instituted and contested in shared life. This relocation is not presented as a new foundationalism; it is presented as a demand that any claim to fundamentality render itself answerable to domains it affects. If the Seinsfrage is said to underlie all understanding, then it bears an internal obligation to clarify how its underlying role relates to public worldliness, to normative bindingness, and to the temporal thickness of historical realities.
A key thread through which Barash makes this demand concrete is the theme of memory, which he treats as an exemplary site where Heidegger’s fundamental claims reveal both their reach and their restriction. The argument develops with a deliberate slowness: memory appears first as a phenomenon that Heidegger’s early religiously inflected phenomenology takes with unusual seriousness, then as a theme that recedes in the analytic architecture of Being and Time, and later as a concept reintroduced under the rubric of “metaphysical remembrance” in the late 1920s, before being displaced again by the later orientation toward a history of Being. The conceptual point is not simply that Heidegger changes his mind. The point is that the role assigned to memory indexes what Heidegger allows to count as a bearer of meaning: whether meaning is borne by a temporal relation to the past that supports continuity in a world, or by a finite existential structure that privileges singularization, decision, and the anticipatory relation to death.
Barash’s reconstruction of this thread is at once philological and diagnostic. He shows that in Being and Time memory acquires ontological significance insofar as it serves the theme of forgetfulness; remembrance is treated as dependent upon the more originary phenomenon of forgetting, and authentic retrieval is articulated primarily as repetition rather than as memory in the ordinary sense. The philosophical implication is substantial: if remembrance is grounded in forgetfulness, then the past is not first given as a stable field of inherited meanings; it becomes accessible through an existential transformation that interrupts everyday absorption and retrieves possibilities under the horizon of finitude. Such a conception can clarify how a life becomes its own by reappropriating its heritage. Yet Barash presses the question whether this very schema, in raising mortality and singular finitude to the level of metaphysical principle, can do justice to forms of finitude that are irreducibly intersubjective and historically layered: finitudes that belong to institutions, to public spaces, to political orders, to traditions of meaning whose temporalities exceed the lifespan of singular agents.
The tension deepens when Heidegger’s late-1920s reappropriation of “metaphysics” as a metaphysics of finite Dasein is coupled with a renewed concern for reminiscence as Wiedererinnerung, now detached from the Platonic orientation to eternity and reoriented to finite temporality. Here Barash’s critique is calibrated: he acknowledges the critical force of Heidegger’s attack on a tradition that evacuates temporal finitude in favor of eternal presence, while also insisting that the inversion of that tradition—substituting singular contingency for eternal being as the metaphysical basis of remembrance—does not by itself establish an adequate account of the finite. The question becomes whether finitude, understood primarily as mortality and singularization, supplies the conceptual resources required to understand the way memory operates in shared historical life: as a medium of continuity, contestation, and responsibility.
What makes this question decisive in Barash’s hands is that it does not remain at the level of descriptive phenomenology. It becomes a hinge between ontology and political theory. If the public realm depends on forms of temporal stabilization—factual continuity, institutional endurance, narratable pasts—then a philosophy that treats publicness primarily as the site of leveling and obscuring risks misconstruing the conditions under which political freedom and judgment are possible. The book therefore allows the memory problematic to flow into the analysis of worldliness and publicity, where Arendt’s critical appropriation of Heidegger supplies a vantage point from which Heidegger’s categories can be measured against the fragility of the common world. Barash’s handling of this encounter is characteristic: he does not treat Arendt as an external critic who simply rejects Heidegger; he treats her as a thinker who inherits motifs, redirects them, and thereby reveals the stakes of what Heidegger’s own redirection covers over.
The crucial issue is the status of the public world as a condition of intelligibility. In Heidegger’s analytic of everydayness, the public dimension of being-in-the-world is bound to replaceability and generality; it is the medium in which tools, signs, and social roles acquire functional meaning through a totality of references. In Arendt’s reinterpretation, as Barash reconstructs it, the public world is not merely the scene of everyday preoccupation; it is an interspace constituted and sustained by action and speech, vulnerable to historical disappearance, and indispensable for the reality of a shared world. The philosophical point is that worldliness itself becomes a problem of political ontology: the world is not simply there as the background of Dasein’s projects; it requires maintenance, and its maintenance involves judgments responsive to factual truth and to the plurality of perspectives.
This brings Barash to a second recurring thread: truth. The book follows how Heidegger’s critique of metaphysical truth as eternal presence connects to his diagnosis of modernity and to his account of the tradition. Yet it treats the political consequences of this critique as philosophically decisive. In Arendt’s perspective, as Barash presents it, the tradition of philosophical truth bears a relation to hostility toward the polis, and the question arises whether Heidegger, even after renouncing eternal truths, succeeds in articulating a conception of truth that remains rooted in the public world and capable of bearing political judgment. The issue is not an empirical claim about Heidegger’s political views alone; it concerns the conceptual economy of a philosophy that seeks a more originary disclosure while granting the public realm a structurally obscuring role. Under this economy, truth risks becoming a privilege of withdrawal, and political life risks becoming a derivative region whose modes of bindingness appear secondary.
At this point, the book’s first major displacement becomes visible. The early promise of fundamental ontology—an analytic of finite existence that would ground understanding—yields, in Heidegger’s later work, to a history-of-Being narrative in which the decisive transformations occur beyond human agency and beyond socio-historical processes in the ordinary sense. Barash reconstructs this shift with attention to its conceptual motivation: an increasing conviction that the metaphysical tradition culminates in technological domination, and that the attempt at historical mastery itself belongs to the illusion of modernity. Yet the shift alters the very place where critique can operate. When the locus of historical transformation is situated in a Seinsgeschichte that withdraws from human action, then the criteria by which one interprets political events, assigns responsibility, and evaluates moral claims become increasingly fragile. The philosophical cost is that a framework intended to disclose the fundamental begins to corrode the conditions under which judgments about concrete historical realities can claim legitimacy.
Barash’s analyses of myth and politics constitute a second axis along which this cost becomes determinate. Myth, in his account, is neither a merely decorative theme nor a casual metaphor. It becomes a structural element of Heidegger’s later thought, especially where the narrative of a new beginning, an “other beginning,” and the expectancy of a new divinity supplies an interpretive horizon for the consummation of modernity. The issue that concerns Barash is methodological: mythic language is employed to convey a vision of historical unity so encompassing that refutation by ordinary historical evidence becomes conceptually excluded. Once the interpretive premises are granted, apparently incompatible political forms can appear as moments within a single overarching process, and catastrophes can be read as disclosures of destiny rather than as events calling for responsibility.
Here the book’s insistence on practical consequences reasserts itself with particular force. Barash traces how, in Heidegger’s later political assumptions, democracy is associated with machination and mass organization, while dictators are elevated as figures capable of discerning a hidden necessity and accompanying modernity toward its consummation. The troubling feature, on Barash’s diagnosis, lies less in the isolated presence of provocative remarks than in their congruence with the underlying historical vision: a vision that construes human responsibility as a derivative concern and treats the future course of history as lying beyond human choice. Such a vision, Barash argues, carries a fatalistic tendency with political weight: it can foster credulity and thereby increase the likelihood of the outcomes it claims to foresee, since resignation from responsibility functions socially as a mechanism of self-fulfillment.
In this way, the book’s argument movement produces another displacement. The initial question—whether Heidegger retrieved the fundamental path of thought—transforms into the question whether the very mode of positing fundamentality generates a structure of irresponsibility at the level of historical judgment. The earlier analytic of finitude had seemed, at least in principle, compatible with decision and responsibility; the later history-of-Being narrative tends toward an ontological decentering of agency that makes responsibility difficult to ground. Barash does not treat this as a simple contradiction. He treats it as a development in which a certain aspiration to radicality—an aspiration to think beyond anthropological and humanistic frames—pushes thought toward a region where the intelligibility of political obligation and historical accountability becomes increasingly opaque.
The book’s treatment of the question of race introduces further nuance into this dynamic, and it does so without simplifying either Heidegger’s relation to Nazi ideology or the conceptual character of Heidegger’s categories. Barash shows that in Heidegger’s writings and lectures of the 1930s and 1940s the concept of race appears, yet it does not occupy a central explanatory role in the manner of biological racism. He also shows that Heidegger articulated critiques of biologistic accounts that reduce a people’s historical essence to Darwinian or hereditarian factors, emphasizing instead historicity in terms of choices and destiny. The philosophical significance of this nuance is double. On the one hand, it prevents the reduction of Heidegger’s ideological complicity to a crude biologism. On the other hand, it clarifies how a critique of biological racism can coexist with, and even support, a political mythology grounded in destiny, leadership, and the denigration of democratic principles. The absence of a biological hierarchy does not by itself secure a philosophy against ideological capture, because the capture can occur at the level of historical-metaphysical narrative and at the level of concepts that authorize exceptional political forms.
Barash’s analysis therefore keeps two lines in view. One line concerns the empirical and textual record of Heidegger’s engagement with the Nazi movement and his later political leanings, including the way newly available materials deepen the record. The second line concerns the conceptual matrix that enables political conclusions: the picture of modernity as a long unfolding of subjectivism and power, the portrayal of liberal and democratic forms as expressions of a planetary machination, and the hope for a transformation that arrives through attentiveness to Being rather than through political action. These lines converge in a question that the book refuses to close prematurely: what is the relation between a philosophy’s categories and the political possibilities they make plausible? Barash’s answer is cautious in attribution, yet firm in methodological stance: philosophical judgment of legacy requires a consideration of practical consequences, since consequences are among the primary sites where claims to fundamentality reveal their adequacy or their shortfall.
This stance also governs the book’s use of figures of reception. Cassirer, Levinas, Arendt, Ricœur appear less as chapters in a history of influence than as philosophical instruments that enable the testing of Heidegger’s categories under alternative demands: symbolic mediation and the plurality of meaning; ethical responsibility that resists absorption into ontology; the public world as condition of reality; historical narration as a medium for the reality of the past. The effect is that Heidegger’s thought is encountered in a field of shadows: shadows cast by his own categories across domains they claim to ground, and shadows cast by critics who inherit elements while refusing the hierarchy that would demote ethics, politics, and history to secondary matters.
One sees, across these encounters, a recurring pattern of conceptual oscillation. Heidegger’s thought gains its intensity by isolating structures of disclosure that precede empirical knowledge and moral prescription. This intensity sustains the claim that the Seinsfrage reveals what is truly fundamental. Yet the very isolation of the ontological level—Heidegger’s insistence on separating ontological analysis from “ontic” considerations—tends to deprive ethics and politics of fundamental standing, relegating them to derivative regions whose norms appear contingent and whose demands lack originary bindingness. Barash’s treatment of theological sources in the genesis of Being and Time makes this deprivation especially clear. He reconstructs how motifs from early engagements with Paul and Luther, including the eschatological tendency toward a negation of the world, inform the background of Heidegger’s later ontological analyses even as Heidegger explicitly severs ties with theological illumination and refuses moral contamination of ontology.
Here Barash employs a distinctive critical method: he clarifies Heidegger’s position by placing it in relief against interpretive possibilities that it excludes. Spinoza becomes exemplary in this regard, because Spinoza’s emphasis on the ethical-political significance of works in the world, and his critique of superstition and sectarian manipulation, articulate a mode of rational responsibility that a strict ontological separation tends to marginalize. Barash does not claim that Heidegger “should have” been a Spinozist. He argues that Heidegger’s ontology, nourished by presuppositions drawn from early theological reflection, develops a conception of authenticity and conscience that radicalizes singularization and world-disengagement in ways that render ethics structurally secondary. The excluded alternative makes visible what the fundamental claim costs: it costs an account of ethical obligation that binds within the shared world as a primary dimension of meaning.
The book’s most consequential contribution lies in the way it binds these threads—memory, truth, myth, politics, race, reception—into a single critical question concerning historical meaning. Heidegger’s later thought, Barash shows, exerts enormous influence precisely through its opposition to contextual methods of the human sciences and its displacement of explanation from ideas and social processes to linguistic metamorphoses shaped by the call of Being. This displacement carries an undeniable philosophical fascination: it promises an access to epochal shifts that conventional historiography registers only indirectly. Yet it also generates a methodological danger: it enables a style of historical interpretation that treats concrete political realities as epiphenomena of an underlying destiny, thereby weakening the authority of empirical evidence and political judgment. The shadow here is cast by the very ambition to think the history of Being as the history that underlies all histories.
In the closing frame, Barash returns to the opening stake: the distinction between the fundamental and the incidental. He acknowledges that this distinction itself appears to demand an impossible vantage point, since any criterion for fundamentality risks circularity. His proposed criterion does not claim absolute security; it claims philosophical pertinence: what proves itself as fundamental is what illuminates historical experience in a way that sustains judgment concerning coexistence in a common world. Under this criterion, Heidegger’s early and later projects exhibit a shared shortfall, although the forms differ. In the early analytic, the public realm is treated in a manner that renders political worldliness conceptually thin. In the later history-of-Being, the fatalistic tendency undermines responsibility for the future course of history and thereby endangers the very possibility of judgment.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment