Wishing Heidegger had been
more of a Whiteheadian
A Note on Thrownness, Meaning-Making,
Authenticity and the divine Lure toward Love
While I was in graduate school, I had the opportunity to take an excellent course focusing on Heidegger's Being and Time. Simultaneously, I was immersed in Whitehead's Process and Reality, and along the way I began to notice—or perhaps invent—connections between their ideas. It was a great disappointment to later discover Heidegger’s troubling ties to Nazism and antisemitism. This raised a difficult question: How could I reconcile the brilliance of his philosophical analysis with such profound moral failings? Were these failings somehow extensions of his philosophy?
Many scholars, far more brilliant than I, have wrestled with this question. Some argue that Heidegger’s moral failings are, indeed, connected to his philosophy, particularly because his account of human existence lacks an appeal to moral norms that transcend individual human life, and because he overemphasizes the individual quest for "authenticity" at the expense of building upon his own idea of "being with" others. His disdain for what he dismissively called the “They" overlooks the positive aspects of relationality—the ways in which authentic life can and should involve connection, care, tenderness, community, shared responsibility, and learning from others.
Over time, I found myself wishing that Heidegger had been more like Whitehead. To Heideggerian scholars, this idea might seem absurd. In many ways, Heidegger is considered a deeper thinker, especially if depth is measured by intensive engagement with the history of Western philosophy. He more than most 20th century philosophers knew the history of Western philosophy in a deep way, and emphasized the importance of "thinking" in depth. By contrast, Whitehead is more of a maverick, an outsider to the traditional philosophical canon. Still, I can’t help but wish that Heidegger had embraced more of a Whiteheadian sensibility—a recognition of the roles that tenderness, care, and love play in authentic human life.
I wonder if this absence of tenderness in Heidegger’s philosophy—and its presence in Whitehead’s—reveals a deeper philosophical divergence. Perhaps it reflects Whitehead’s intuition that there is more to life than what Heidegger identified, in his early philosophy, as the Being of beings. For Whitehead, there is indeed an ultimate reality - Creativity - that is actual in virtue of of its instances, but one expression of it is a divine a lure toward love that emerges from the heart of experience itself. This lure is not an external ideal imposed on life but something embedded within it—woven into the fabric of everyday human moments, calling us toward connection, beauty, and care. What follows is an invitation for others to consider the question with me, including some who know Heidegger better than I, and then add your own answer, however sympathetic to, or critical of, it might be of what I propose. I hope to follow up this essay with short notes on the later Heidegger - but that is for another post.
Thrownness in Being and Time
In Being and Time, Heidegger’s concept of thrownness (Geworfenheit) captures the unavoidable reality that we find ourselves in particular situations—shaped by the past and determined by circumstances—without having chosen them. These include, for instance, our birth into a specific family, culture, and historical period; the language we speak; our socioeconomic status; and the political or environmental conditions we inherit. Beyond these, thrownness also manifests in unexpected personal events, such as illness, trauma, or relational obligations that fall beyond our control.
Significantly, so I add, thrownness encompasses not only the external forces that shape us but also the personal decisions we made in the past, which now form part of the fixed conditions influencing the present. Even though those choices were once open, they are now irreversible, becoming elements of our personal history that constrain or enable the possibilities available to us.
However, Heidegger’s concept of thrownness is not about being passive victims of circumstance. It points to the fact that we are always situated within particular contexts that require active engagement. Although the past shapes us, it does not entirely determine us. Authenticity, for Heidegger, involves acknowledging and "owning" our thrownness—recognizing both the chosen and unchosen aspects of our lives—and actively responding to our situation by shaping new possibilities out of what has been given.
Consider someone living during a time of political upheaval, such as the rise of authoritarianism. They did not ask to live in this era or control the larger forces at play, yet they are thrown into these conditions. They must navigate realities such as authoritarian rhetoric, threats to democracy, and societal polarization—deciding how to respond meaningfully, whether through resistance, adaptation, or efforts to create change.
This example illustrates that thrownness is not merely a matter of circumstance; it involves the challenge of responding authentically to our conditions. We cannot escape the reality we inherit, but we can choose how to engage with it. For Heidegger, authenticity requires owning the constraints and possibilities of our thrownness and taking meaningful action within these limits.
A Process-Relational Perspective on Thrownness
A process philosopher influenced by Alfred North Whitehead might resonate with Heidegger’s insight but expand on it in relational and creative terms. In process thought, each moment of life is shaped—consciously and unconsciously—by what Whitehead calls a “past actual world.” This world consists of events and relationships that have already occurred and cannot be undone. Some of these events are the outcomes of our own decisions, but many others—such as the family we were born into, the language we speak, or the conditions of the natural world—are beyond our control.
Process philosophy recognizes that much of what is given to us can be experienced as a gift: the nurturing love of a parent, the beauty of a landscape, or the wisdom embedded in cultural traditions. Even basic realities—like the air we breathe, the food we eat, or the sunlight that nourishes plants—can be seen as gifts enriching our lives, providing stability, meaning, and inspiration.
Yet not all that we inherit feels like a gift. Our personal and collective past, with its challenges, missed opportunities, or traumas, also forms the ground upon which we stand. Whether it feels like a blessing or a burden, the givenness of the past becomes part of the immediate reality that shapes both our sense of self and the possibilities available to us in the present.
For a process philosopher, thrownness is not just a limitation but also an opportunity for creativity. The past cannot be changed, but it provides the precondition for new possibilities. Even difficult elements—such as trauma or unchosen obligations—can be transformed into occasions for growth, inviting us to imagine new ways of moving forward.
Being, Meaning-Making, and the Role of God
In Being and Time, Heidegger’s goal was not simply to describe lived experience but to uncover the Being of beings—the underlying nature of existence. By this, Heidegger did not mean the observable qualities of things (ontic being) but the fundamental process of being—the ongoing activity of making meaning and shaping purpose in the conditions into which we are thrown.
Heidegger offered no fixed norms for this meaning-making. He argued that meaning must arise from our own choices and actions, rather than from societal conventions or what he called the “They” (das Man). Thus, we are each tasked with shaping our existence authentically through personal engagement and decision-making.
Similarly, Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes the creative act of meaning-making as intrinsic to existence. For Whitehead, every moment involves self-creativity—the process of creating purpose from the circumstances of the present. At the heart of this creativity lies Creativity itself, an ultimate reality that resonates with Heidegger’s notion of the being of beings as the underlying activity that animates existence. Each moment is shaped by subjective aims, which guide us in selecting from the possibilities presented by our past.
However, Whitehead introduces a further dimension: the idea that some aims are given rather than self-generated. These initial aims—ideals such as truth, beauty, and goodness—are received as gifts and guide us toward deeper values that are part of the very fabric of the universe. Process philosophers understand these ideals as emerging from a cosmic harmony, or what Whitehead calls a “harmony of harmonies,” which he identifies with God. These guiding possibilities invite us toward wise, compassionate, and creative ways of living in relationship with others.
Thus, authenticity in process philosophy involves not only self-creation but also cooperation with these divine lures. Meaning-making becomes a dynamic interplay between personal agency and the guiding aims of a universe saturated with meaning.
God and Creativity
For Whitehead, the being of beings is not God but Creativity—the pure activity from which all beings, including God, arise. Every living being expresses Creativity by participating in the ongoing process of becoming, making choices, and forming aims. Even God is not Creativity itself but an expression of it.
In Whitehead’s thought, God plays a dual role: as a lure toward beauty, harmony, and wholeness, and as a receptacle for all that happens in the world. God’s power is not one of coercion but of persuasion—offering possibilities for growth that creatures are free to accept or reject. In this way, God’s presence is felt as an inward invitation toward transformation, urging all beings to participate in the shared process of becoming.
Heidegger’s Nazi Involvement
A full engagement with Heidegger’s thought cannot ignore his association with Nazism. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and, as rector of the University of Freiburg, aligned the institution with Nazi ideals. Although his public involvement was brief, he never apologized for his actions or the suffering inflicted under the regime. Recent publications of his Black Notebooks reveal anti-Semitic sentiments, further complicating his philosophical legacy.
Some scholars argue that Heidegger’s focus on authenticity fosters an individualized, potentially dangerous philosophy that risks isolating individuals from the possibilities of relational existence. Critics suggest that his emphasis on personal authenticity can promote forms of extremism by rejecting communal ties and mutual care.
Toward an Authenticity of Love
While Heidegger’s philosophy emphasizes personal responsibility, it often neglects the importance of relationality and care. By contrast, Whitehead’s process philosophy offers a relational view of authenticity, grounded in love and connection. In this view, authenticity arises not from individual will alone but through cooperation with the guiding aims of God and a commitment to broader social ideals.
For Whitehead, authentic living involves responding to the living lure of love—a love that includes care for other humans, the natural world, and the web of life itself. This love shapes and transforms us, calling us toward relational authenticity.
While Heideggerians might dismiss this relational ideal as wish-fulfillment, Whitehead’s vision suggests that divine guidance is not external to us but woven into the very fabric of existence. Authenticity, from a process perspective, involves discovering meaning within the richness of relational experience—within acts of love, care, and connection with both human and non-human others.
In this light, Heidegger’s concept of mitsein (being-with) can be expanded to embrace not only human relationships but also a deeper, cosmic sense of being-with—a recognition that we are always already in relationship with the world, shaped by both the past and the divine possibilities that beckon us forward.
Perhaps, in his later writings, Heidegger began to glimpse this possibility—moving away from a focus on individual meaning-making toward a more trans-human and apophatic understanding of being as a spontaneous Clearing in which things. Nevertheless, Whitehead’s philosophy offers a richer framework for exploring the relational nature of existence and the role of love in authentic living. Whitehead adds that something loving and divine is within the Clearing.
Many scholars, far more brilliant than I, have wrestled with this question. Some argue that Heidegger’s moral failings are, indeed, connected to his philosophy, particularly because his account of human existence lacks an appeal to moral norms that transcend individual human life, and because he overemphasizes the individual quest for "authenticity" at the expense of building upon his own idea of "being with" others. His disdain for what he dismissively called the “They" overlooks the positive aspects of relationality—the ways in which authentic life can and should involve connection, care, tenderness, community, shared responsibility, and learning from others.
Over time, I found myself wishing that Heidegger had been more like Whitehead. To Heideggerian scholars, this idea might seem absurd. In many ways, Heidegger is considered a deeper thinker, especially if depth is measured by intensive engagement with the history of Western philosophy. He more than most 20th century philosophers knew the history of Western philosophy in a deep way, and emphasized the importance of "thinking" in depth. By contrast, Whitehead is more of a maverick, an outsider to the traditional philosophical canon. Still, I can’t help but wish that Heidegger had embraced more of a Whiteheadian sensibility—a recognition of the roles that tenderness, care, and love play in authentic human life.
I wonder if this absence of tenderness in Heidegger’s philosophy—and its presence in Whitehead’s—reveals a deeper philosophical divergence. Perhaps it reflects Whitehead’s intuition that there is more to life than what Heidegger identified, in his early philosophy, as the Being of beings. For Whitehead, there is indeed an ultimate reality - Creativity - that is actual in virtue of of its instances, but one expression of it is a divine a lure toward love that emerges from the heart of experience itself. This lure is not an external ideal imposed on life but something embedded within it—woven into the fabric of everyday human moments, calling us toward connection, beauty, and care. What follows is an invitation for others to consider the question with me, including some who know Heidegger better than I, and then add your own answer, however sympathetic to, or critical of, it might be of what I propose. I hope to follow up this essay with short notes on the later Heidegger - but that is for another post.
Thrownness in Being and Time
In Being and Time, Heidegger’s concept of thrownness (Geworfenheit) captures the unavoidable reality that we find ourselves in particular situations—shaped by the past and determined by circumstances—without having chosen them. These include, for instance, our birth into a specific family, culture, and historical period; the language we speak; our socioeconomic status; and the political or environmental conditions we inherit. Beyond these, thrownness also manifests in unexpected personal events, such as illness, trauma, or relational obligations that fall beyond our control.
Significantly, so I add, thrownness encompasses not only the external forces that shape us but also the personal decisions we made in the past, which now form part of the fixed conditions influencing the present. Even though those choices were once open, they are now irreversible, becoming elements of our personal history that constrain or enable the possibilities available to us.
However, Heidegger’s concept of thrownness is not about being passive victims of circumstance. It points to the fact that we are always situated within particular contexts that require active engagement. Although the past shapes us, it does not entirely determine us. Authenticity, for Heidegger, involves acknowledging and "owning" our thrownness—recognizing both the chosen and unchosen aspects of our lives—and actively responding to our situation by shaping new possibilities out of what has been given.
Consider someone living during a time of political upheaval, such as the rise of authoritarianism. They did not ask to live in this era or control the larger forces at play, yet they are thrown into these conditions. They must navigate realities such as authoritarian rhetoric, threats to democracy, and societal polarization—deciding how to respond meaningfully, whether through resistance, adaptation, or efforts to create change.
This example illustrates that thrownness is not merely a matter of circumstance; it involves the challenge of responding authentically to our conditions. We cannot escape the reality we inherit, but we can choose how to engage with it. For Heidegger, authenticity requires owning the constraints and possibilities of our thrownness and taking meaningful action within these limits.
A Process-Relational Perspective on Thrownness
A process philosopher influenced by Alfred North Whitehead might resonate with Heidegger’s insight but expand on it in relational and creative terms. In process thought, each moment of life is shaped—consciously and unconsciously—by what Whitehead calls a “past actual world.” This world consists of events and relationships that have already occurred and cannot be undone. Some of these events are the outcomes of our own decisions, but many others—such as the family we were born into, the language we speak, or the conditions of the natural world—are beyond our control.
Process philosophy recognizes that much of what is given to us can be experienced as a gift: the nurturing love of a parent, the beauty of a landscape, or the wisdom embedded in cultural traditions. Even basic realities—like the air we breathe, the food we eat, or the sunlight that nourishes plants—can be seen as gifts enriching our lives, providing stability, meaning, and inspiration.
Yet not all that we inherit feels like a gift. Our personal and collective past, with its challenges, missed opportunities, or traumas, also forms the ground upon which we stand. Whether it feels like a blessing or a burden, the givenness of the past becomes part of the immediate reality that shapes both our sense of self and the possibilities available to us in the present.
For a process philosopher, thrownness is not just a limitation but also an opportunity for creativity. The past cannot be changed, but it provides the precondition for new possibilities. Even difficult elements—such as trauma or unchosen obligations—can be transformed into occasions for growth, inviting us to imagine new ways of moving forward.
Being, Meaning-Making, and the Role of God
In Being and Time, Heidegger’s goal was not simply to describe lived experience but to uncover the Being of beings—the underlying nature of existence. By this, Heidegger did not mean the observable qualities of things (ontic being) but the fundamental process of being—the ongoing activity of making meaning and shaping purpose in the conditions into which we are thrown.
Heidegger offered no fixed norms for this meaning-making. He argued that meaning must arise from our own choices and actions, rather than from societal conventions or what he called the “They” (das Man). Thus, we are each tasked with shaping our existence authentically through personal engagement and decision-making.
Similarly, Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes the creative act of meaning-making as intrinsic to existence. For Whitehead, every moment involves self-creativity—the process of creating purpose from the circumstances of the present. At the heart of this creativity lies Creativity itself, an ultimate reality that resonates with Heidegger’s notion of the being of beings as the underlying activity that animates existence. Each moment is shaped by subjective aims, which guide us in selecting from the possibilities presented by our past.
However, Whitehead introduces a further dimension: the idea that some aims are given rather than self-generated. These initial aims—ideals such as truth, beauty, and goodness—are received as gifts and guide us toward deeper values that are part of the very fabric of the universe. Process philosophers understand these ideals as emerging from a cosmic harmony, or what Whitehead calls a “harmony of harmonies,” which he identifies with God. These guiding possibilities invite us toward wise, compassionate, and creative ways of living in relationship with others.
Thus, authenticity in process philosophy involves not only self-creation but also cooperation with these divine lures. Meaning-making becomes a dynamic interplay between personal agency and the guiding aims of a universe saturated with meaning.
God and Creativity
For Whitehead, the being of beings is not God but Creativity—the pure activity from which all beings, including God, arise. Every living being expresses Creativity by participating in the ongoing process of becoming, making choices, and forming aims. Even God is not Creativity itself but an expression of it.
In Whitehead’s thought, God plays a dual role: as a lure toward beauty, harmony, and wholeness, and as a receptacle for all that happens in the world. God’s power is not one of coercion but of persuasion—offering possibilities for growth that creatures are free to accept or reject. In this way, God’s presence is felt as an inward invitation toward transformation, urging all beings to participate in the shared process of becoming.
Heidegger’s Nazi Involvement
A full engagement with Heidegger’s thought cannot ignore his association with Nazism. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and, as rector of the University of Freiburg, aligned the institution with Nazi ideals. Although his public involvement was brief, he never apologized for his actions or the suffering inflicted under the regime. Recent publications of his Black Notebooks reveal anti-Semitic sentiments, further complicating his philosophical legacy.
Some scholars argue that Heidegger’s focus on authenticity fosters an individualized, potentially dangerous philosophy that risks isolating individuals from the possibilities of relational existence. Critics suggest that his emphasis on personal authenticity can promote forms of extremism by rejecting communal ties and mutual care.
Toward an Authenticity of Love
While Heidegger’s philosophy emphasizes personal responsibility, it often neglects the importance of relationality and care. By contrast, Whitehead’s process philosophy offers a relational view of authenticity, grounded in love and connection. In this view, authenticity arises not from individual will alone but through cooperation with the guiding aims of God and a commitment to broader social ideals.
For Whitehead, authentic living involves responding to the living lure of love—a love that includes care for other humans, the natural world, and the web of life itself. This love shapes and transforms us, calling us toward relational authenticity.
While Heideggerians might dismiss this relational ideal as wish-fulfillment, Whitehead’s vision suggests that divine guidance is not external to us but woven into the very fabric of existence. Authenticity, from a process perspective, involves discovering meaning within the richness of relational experience—within acts of love, care, and connection with both human and non-human others.
In this light, Heidegger’s concept of mitsein (being-with) can be expanded to embrace not only human relationships but also a deeper, cosmic sense of being-with—a recognition that we are always already in relationship with the world, shaped by both the past and the divine possibilities that beckon us forward.
Perhaps, in his later writings, Heidegger began to glimpse this possibility—moving away from a focus on individual meaning-making toward a more trans-human and apophatic understanding of being as a spontaneous Clearing in which things. Nevertheless, Whitehead’s philosophy offers a richer framework for exploring the relational nature of existence and the role of love in authentic living. Whitehead adds that something loving and divine is within the Clearing.
