Iain,
You ask about the infamous ``inner truth and greatness`` passage from the
_Introduction to Metphysics_ and ``whether scholarly consensus has been
reached`` about the date of the parenthetical remark.
First of all, in regards to an accurate rendering in English, I think that
Manheim pretty much gets it right here: ``the inner truth and greatness of
this movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern
man).`` I might quibble with how to render ``der planetarisch bestimmten
Technik,`` but Manheim`s translation is unquestionably sound.
Now, as to the passage itself, there is no question that the non-parenthetical
part was delivered in 1935. But, as Otto Poeggeler reports, and as editor
Petra Jaeger confirms in her Afterword to the Gasamtausgabe edition (vol. 40)
of IM, the words ``dieser Bewegung`` (``of this movement``) were originally
``des N.S.`` (``of National Socialism``). This is established by a transcript
of the lecture and from a still extant 1953 printer`s proof. In other words,
it is hard to imagine that anyone but Heidegger himself, in 1953, changed
``National Socialism`` to ``this movement.``
The next question, of course, is whether the parenthetical statement in this
passage was written, though not publicly delivered in lecture, in 1935, as
Heidegger claimed in his Spiegel interview.
Well, the fact is that Heidegger`s original, handwritten pages for the lecture
are missing from the Heidegger Nachlass! Not the whole manuscript, but only
the pages around this passage. Now, are we to imagine that some mortal enemy
of Heidegger`s crept into his files and removed these pages, just to provide
grounds for some future doubt of his veracity? Neverthess, whatever the
contents of the original manuscript, neither the contemporary transcript nor
the extant 1953 proof contains the parenthetical remark. Hence, Petra Jaeger
writes that we may presume that Heidegger added it in 1953, just as he had
replaced ``National Socialism`` with ``this movement.`` Until the missing
pages are recovered, we have no absolute proof of this, but I think only the
most credulous could believe otherwise.
For discussion, see:
Otto Poeggeler, _Martin Heidegger`s Path of Thinking_, trans. Daniel Magurshak
and Sigmund Barber (Humanities Press, 1989), pp. 276-278.
Martin Heidgger, _Einfuehrung in the Metaphysik_, in _Gesamtausgabe_, vol. 40,
ed. Petra Jaeger (Klostermann, 1983), pp. 232-234.
For an excellent reflection on this passage, see Dominique Janaicaud, ``The
Purloined Letter,`` in _The Heidegger Case: On Philosophy and Politics_,
ed. Tom Rockmore and Joseph Margolis (Temple, 1992).
If you want a defense of Heidegger on the ``inner truth and greatness,`` see
Silvio Vietta, _Heideggers Kritik am Nationalsozialismus und an der Technik_
(Niemeyer, 1989). This book makes the (in my view, absurd) argument that
``greatness`` must be understood here in a pejorative sense (as in the modern
machinations of immensity and power), and that the parenthetical remark
clarifies the demonic nature of this ``greatness.``
I hope all this helps.
-- Greg Fried
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
You ask about the infamous ``inner truth and greatness`` passage from the
_Introduction to Metphysics_ and ``whether scholarly consensus has been
reached`` about the date of the parenthetical remark.
First of all, in regards to an accurate rendering in English, I think that
Manheim pretty much gets it right here: ``the inner truth and greatness of
this movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern
man).`` I might quibble with how to render ``der planetarisch bestimmten
Technik,`` but Manheim`s translation is unquestionably sound.
Now, as to the passage itself, there is no question that the non-parenthetical
part was delivered in 1935. But, as Otto Poeggeler reports, and as editor
Petra Jaeger confirms in her Afterword to the Gasamtausgabe edition (vol. 40)
of IM, the words ``dieser Bewegung`` (``of this movement``) were originally
``des N.S.`` (``of National Socialism``). This is established by a transcript
of the lecture and from a still extant 1953 printer`s proof. In other words,
it is hard to imagine that anyone but Heidegger himself, in 1953, changed
``National Socialism`` to ``this movement.``
The next question, of course, is whether the parenthetical statement in this
passage was written, though not publicly delivered in lecture, in 1935, as
Heidegger claimed in his Spiegel interview.
Well, the fact is that Heidegger`s original, handwritten pages for the lecture
are missing from the Heidegger Nachlass! Not the whole manuscript, but only
the pages around this passage. Now, are we to imagine that some mortal enemy
of Heidegger`s crept into his files and removed these pages, just to provide
grounds for some future doubt of his veracity? Neverthess, whatever the
contents of the original manuscript, neither the contemporary transcript nor
the extant 1953 proof contains the parenthetical remark. Hence, Petra Jaeger
writes that we may presume that Heidegger added it in 1953, just as he had
replaced ``National Socialism`` with ``this movement.`` Until the missing
pages are recovered, we have no absolute proof of this, but I think only the
most credulous could believe otherwise.
For discussion, see:
Otto Poeggeler, _Martin Heidegger`s Path of Thinking_, trans. Daniel Magurshak
and Sigmund Barber (Humanities Press, 1989), pp. 276-278.
Martin Heidgger, _Einfuehrung in the Metaphysik_, in _Gesamtausgabe_, vol. 40,
ed. Petra Jaeger (Klostermann, 1983), pp. 232-234.
For an excellent reflection on this passage, see Dominique Janaicaud, ``The
Purloined Letter,`` in _The Heidegger Case: On Philosophy and Politics_,
ed. Tom Rockmore and Joseph Margolis (Temple, 1992).
If you want a defense of Heidegger on the ``inner truth and greatness,`` see
Silvio Vietta, _Heideggers Kritik am Nationalsozialismus und an der Technik_
(Niemeyer, 1989). This book makes the (in my view, absurd) argument that
``greatness`` must be understood here in a pejorative sense (as in the modern
machinations of immensity and power), and that the parenthetical remark
clarifies the demonic nature of this ``greatness.``
I hope all this helps.
-- Greg Fried
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---