Does adherence to the principles of logic commit us to a particular way of viewing the world? Or are there ways of being – ways of behaving in the world, including ways of thinking, feeling, and speaking – that ground the normative constraints that logic imposes? Does the fact that assertions, the traditional elements of logic, are typically made about beings present a problem for metaphysical (or post-metaphysical) prospects of making assertions meaningfully about being? Does thinking about being (as opposed to beings) accordingly require revising or restricting logic’s reach – and, if so, how is this possible? Or is there something precious about the very idea of thinking the limits of thinking? Contemporary scholars have become increasingly sensitive to how Heidegger, much like Wittgenstein, instructively poses such questions. Heidegger on Logic is a collection of new essays by leading scholars who critically ponder the efficacy of his responses to them.

This chapter addresses what Heidegger considers one of the basic problems of philosophy, that is, the alleged incompatibility between the notion of Being, our thinking, and logic. To begin with, it discusses how Heideggerians have dealt with this incompatibility by discussing what Casati calls an irrationalist and rationalist interpretation of Heidegger’s philosophy. Then, the chapter argues that both of these interpretations face exegetical and philosophical problems. To conclude, it defends an alternative way of addressing the incompatibility between our thinking, logic, and the notion of Being. In this connection Casati notes Heidegger’s suggestion, in some of his late works, that the real problem lies in the philosophical illusion that we can actually assess the limits of our thinking and, thereby, our logic. Heidegger’s philosophy aims, the chapter submits, at freeing us from such a philosophical illusion by delivering an experience that reminds us that we can never look at our thinking, as it were, from “on high,” i.e., from a standpoint that would enable us to grasp its limits or determine that it has no limits whatsoever.