We know that Helmuth Plessner complained about his anthropological magnum opus, published in 1928, being overshadowed by Heidegger from the beginning. When the latter, in turn, responded to Plessner, for example to his preface toStufen, it was always anonymously; Heidegger never actually mentioned Plessner in any publication. Plessner on the other hand emphasized that he had developed his concept without any knowledge ofSein und Zeit, even though since 1924, he had shown strong interest in the yet-unknown colleague’s work. Thus, it (...) appeared to the public that they philosophised independently of one another.In fact, the situation is much more complicated. This paper tries, above all, to identify the sources of the peculiar discomfort caused on both sides by the work of the respective other, as well as to delineate the philosophical effects. Notably in Heidegger’s case, not enough is known about this. Heidegger starts out, in the 1920’s, cultivating a strong anti-anthropological affect; however, after his triumphal success, both with his publication and in the institutional field, in 1927/1928, he finds himself in an orientation crisis; it is from this point onwards that traces of Plessner’s anthropology can be found in his thinking. Ultimately, Plessner will prove a serious source of irritation as well as of inspiration for Heidegger.Additionally, from a systematic point of view, the present text retraces the main points of Plessner’s critique (subjectivity, disembodiedness of fundamental ontology). The investigation makes use of a broader corpus of text than was available to Plessner and Heidegger’s contemporaries, and concentrates on two questions: Did Plessner understand his opponent? Is he able to raise valid objections? It becomes obvious that Plessner is right in complaining about disembodiedness (even though his ownLeibphilosophy remains conceptually diffuse), while some differentiation is advisable concerning the subjectivism charge. (shrink)

Georg Simmel is among the intellectuals taking part in the German side of the »Culture War«, parallel to the war 1914–1918. This article discusses three different meanings of »Culture War«: 1. »Culture War« as war about culture, 2. »Culture War« as war by means of culture, 3. »Culture War« as aggravated proceeding of criticism of culture. Among the motives of the »Culture War« is the reproach of »barbarism« made by Henri Bergson against the German side originating from a public debate (...) after the destruction of the Cathedral of Reims. In the reactions of German intellectuals a reinterpretation of the concept of culture is apparent, inspired by philosophy of life and leading to a peculiar »ethic of the creative power of culture«. Simmel's examination of the generic case of the Cathedral of Reims conclusively serves as prototype of a criticism of this approach: German intellectuals confuse metaphors stemming from the sphere of nature with those of culture without reflection, thus obliterating essential differences between those spheres. (shrink)