I agree with (and appreciate) the observation that those of us who deal
with Heidegger must come to terms with his involvement in the Nazi party.
I have never been one to think that we could overlook H's political ends
in order to understand his philosophical ones. However, I also think it is
a mistake to see H's involvement as one of a philosopher joining along
with a despicable and socially bankrupt ideology. Such a judgment requires
the benefit of historical perspective that we have and that H did not.
This is to say that H's involvement must be put into an appropriate
context.
An excellent and rather short statement on the matter appears in Charles
Guignon's "Introduction," to _The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger_. While
I am not yet sure how far Guignon goes in saving Heidegger's philosophy
>from his politics, his moderate and balanced approach at least provides a
way to integrate the two without having them self-destruct. To do this,
Guignon must steer clear of the anachronisms that characterize our quick
judgment of H and the Nazi party, examine the Nationalism present in
Germany at the time and analyze what this means for H, and, finally, see
"the turn" as a turn away from the totalizing tendency of _Being and
Time_ toward a more open view of Being (which, if you will permit the
awful use of metaphor, characterizes Being as agent and Dasein as patient
rather than the other way around.)
Guignon's attempt provides for us an interesting access to philosophical
discussion that transcends mere name calling.
Some issues that this raises for us concern 1) the extent to which B&T
conceals a hidden subjectivism, despite H's desire to the contrary, and 2)
the extent to which "the turn" shows an attempt on H's part to reconsider
precisely the totalizing (and therefore totalitarian) dangers of B&T.
>From my point of view, it looks like H's swing from a Dasein characterized
by agency, that is projection, to one characterized by a certain kind of
passivity, a waiting for Being, leads H to a philosophy of political
non-action that is not all that satisfying, though certainly also one that
could not justify his involvement in the Nazi party. How do we read these
texts? Is it possible that H was sorry for (or, at least aware of) his
mistake? Finally, tables turned, I must ask myself what I might be willing
to admit after the war about my involvement with the Nazi's were I to be
the Martin Heidegger of the 1930's. Any admission is liable to be divorced
>from the philosophical considerations that led H to join the Nazi party.
Whatever we may say about it, H's choice to join the party was thought
out on the basis of his thinking, a thinking which he turned against
(depending on how you read "the turn").
Answering the question about what H turned from (or turned against) in
"the turn" should help clarify other important questions concerning the
political implications of H's early works.
Thank you,
Tony
________________________________________________________________________
A.F. Beavers, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. Philosophy & Religion
U of Evansville, Evansville, IN 47722 812-479-2682
Metaphysics, Contemporary Continental Philosophy
________________________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---