>Chris. Just a quick clarification. Lacoue-Labarthe says, and has said
>repeatedly, that Heidegger's "repudiation" of National Socialism was
>based on his sense that the Nazis weren't "Nazi" enough for him. Your
>line about H's repudiation of Nazism seems to presuppose that such a
>repudiation would go in only one direction (i.e. into a liberal
>condemnation).
About PLL, I realize that. I also know that he said that Heidegger alone
has allowed us to adequately think the Holocaust. He has joined others in
taking Heidegger's later philosophy as giving the best means to combat the
romantic strain that leads to totalitarianism, the very romanticism that he
claims led Heidegger to his fatal error and which he had overcome
definitively by 1955. Because he invokes a Heidegger II who overcomes the
errors of Heidegger I, I included PLL among my group. I don't mean to
imply that a repudiation must tend in only one direction; that is precisely
my point. Most "Left Heideggerians," within which I would include PLL,
understand Heidegger's critique of technology to be antifascist. Heidegger
apparently did not think so, and precisely that thinking that PLL and
others take to be the grounds for repudiating fascism seems to be
Heidegger's reason for embracing it. I find that interesting and
thought-provoking. One cannot claim that PLL or Nancy or Schurmann have
ignored the connection of metaphysics and fascism, but what about
anti-metaphysics and fascism? And how do we think the essential
belonging-together of anti-metaphysics and fascism in such a way as to
include all real existing fascist parties as metaphysical? Or is Heidegger
simply mistaken in his conclusion?
What I find missing in PLL is an acknowledgment that Heidegger the thinker
(and not just the man) will come back,in 1945, 1955, 1965,to National
Socialism as the best potential for encountering modern technology. I want
to know why. PLL has no answer, can have no answer, to this question.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>repeatedly, that Heidegger's "repudiation" of National Socialism was
>based on his sense that the Nazis weren't "Nazi" enough for him. Your
>line about H's repudiation of Nazism seems to presuppose that such a
>repudiation would go in only one direction (i.e. into a liberal
>condemnation).
About PLL, I realize that. I also know that he said that Heidegger alone
has allowed us to adequately think the Holocaust. He has joined others in
taking Heidegger's later philosophy as giving the best means to combat the
romantic strain that leads to totalitarianism, the very romanticism that he
claims led Heidegger to his fatal error and which he had overcome
definitively by 1955. Because he invokes a Heidegger II who overcomes the
errors of Heidegger I, I included PLL among my group. I don't mean to
imply that a repudiation must tend in only one direction; that is precisely
my point. Most "Left Heideggerians," within which I would include PLL,
understand Heidegger's critique of technology to be antifascist. Heidegger
apparently did not think so, and precisely that thinking that PLL and
others take to be the grounds for repudiating fascism seems to be
Heidegger's reason for embracing it. I find that interesting and
thought-provoking. One cannot claim that PLL or Nancy or Schurmann have
ignored the connection of metaphysics and fascism, but what about
anti-metaphysics and fascism? And how do we think the essential
belonging-together of anti-metaphysics and fascism in such a way as to
include all real existing fascist parties as metaphysical? Or is Heidegger
simply mistaken in his conclusion?
What I find missing in PLL is an acknowledgment that Heidegger the thinker
(and not just the man) will come back,in 1945, 1955, 1965,to National
Socialism as the best potential for encountering modern technology. I want
to know why. PLL has no answer, can have no answer, to this question.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---