It has been my experience in discussions with devotees of Heidegger
that they are the ones, generally speaking, that are not serious in
discussing this question. They simply dismiss it with the comment that
anyone who raises it has not seriously read Heidegger, not understood him,
and is not serious in getting clear on the issues. A good example of this
disdain was the treatment of the recent book on Arendt and Heidegger. It may
be a bit "gossipy" in tone, but there is a lot that merits attention there.
As to poverty of discussion, there is actually a great deal of rather
sensitive, critical treatments that bring out that Heidegger's affiliation
with the nazis was more than a casual flirtation. As an example of what I
mean I recommend Thomas Sheehan's articles from the New York Review of
Books. There you will find a very interesting account of Heidegger's
involvement that seriously calls into question his integrity.
Now exactly what is unhelpful in the materials that have been
written on this stuff? Exactly what in it has been of the caliber of the
National Enquirer? On the contrary the stuff being written in the last
decade has been very sophisticated. What is lacking is a serious response by
Heideggerians on this. All of this hits at some of the key questions of
political philosophy. Heidegger's rejection of traditional philosophy makes
his thought vulnerable to the criticism that in celebrating the poetic over
the practical, he has not allowed sufficient attention to the ethical. His
valorization of the poetic over the productive, without any consideration of
the practical and theoretical in the works of Plato and Aristotle, is a
theme that must be brought to bear on his terrible political decisions in
the 30's and 40's. In fact Heidegger's life keeps intruding into his
philosophical works at a variety of points. This calls into question the
independence of thinking from the intent and life of the thinker that
Heidegger claims.
Another question that I have is how is this critique of Heidegger
self-righteousness? Heidegger has rejected western ethical valuations. This
is played out in the works of Heideggerians who argue that traditional forms
of ethics are technological, inauthentic and lead to the inhuman. They also
argue for an abandonment of these valuations. But the more reasonable tack
on this is that Heidegger's abandonment of Western thought calls for some
reconsideration of the wisdom of such a course. Here is the point where one
can find the basis of a real critical engagement of Heidegger's thought. It
is not enough to simply repeat the question of Being in a way that
presupposes the truth of Heidegger's starting point. But one must circle
around an issue that promises to provide the clearing from within which a
critical assessment of Heidgger's work can finally occur. Heidegger's
political engagement in the '30's, along with his attempts to cover up the
details, is the most fruitful basis for judging the value of his work.
Clearly one finds that his thought can be seen as way in which he
rationalized away his responsibility for what he did. This is a point that
Sheehan brings out in his various works on Heidegger.
As to whether there are any Nazi elements to be found in Heidegger's
texts, well I think that those who reject this ought to reconsider that
position. There are some very alarming things that Heidegger says in essays
like the Letter On Humanism and other post-war essays that lend a lot of
credence to that view. Heidegger's students in the period after the war were
very concerned about the tone of the things that he was saying. In
particular there was a lot of concern raised about his comments on the
Holocaust. Gadamer, Lowith and others were very encouraging of Habermas and
Marcuse when they attempted to get Heidegger to explain his actions. They
felt that an accounting had to be made. So to take up the issue in a serious
way is to finally see what the implications of Heidegger's thought are, to
be able to critically engage his reading of Western values, and then to more
thoughtfully take up the question of Being. My experience is that when these
issues are addressed by Heideggerians, it usually results in the dismissal
of the seriousness of the issues. Then the Heidegger project continues
without a hitch, as if all of this was to be chocked up to a
misunderstanding of what happened. It is the unquestioned acceptance of
Heidegger's critique of the West, his rejection of Europe, America and
traditional political philosophy that is brought to the forefront when his
actions are scrutinized. In the light of these issues Heidegger's answers
are simply found wanting.
In the light of this last point, someone once challenged me as to
why I would subscribe to this list. Well the answer to that question is that
Heidegger's thought is championed as the voice of intellectual liberation.
It is the antidote to all of the western poison that we have been suffering
from. I think that in trying to understand what he says, to see his thought
in the context of his life, one gets a better sense of the truth of such a
view. Heidegger's thought is challenging, worthy of study. But I think that
in the end it is a moral failure, but for precisely that reason it must be
studied.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
that they are the ones, generally speaking, that are not serious in
discussing this question. They simply dismiss it with the comment that
anyone who raises it has not seriously read Heidegger, not understood him,
and is not serious in getting clear on the issues. A good example of this
disdain was the treatment of the recent book on Arendt and Heidegger. It may
be a bit "gossipy" in tone, but there is a lot that merits attention there.
As to poverty of discussion, there is actually a great deal of rather
sensitive, critical treatments that bring out that Heidegger's affiliation
with the nazis was more than a casual flirtation. As an example of what I
mean I recommend Thomas Sheehan's articles from the New York Review of
Books. There you will find a very interesting account of Heidegger's
involvement that seriously calls into question his integrity.
Now exactly what is unhelpful in the materials that have been
written on this stuff? Exactly what in it has been of the caliber of the
National Enquirer? On the contrary the stuff being written in the last
decade has been very sophisticated. What is lacking is a serious response by
Heideggerians on this. All of this hits at some of the key questions of
political philosophy. Heidegger's rejection of traditional philosophy makes
his thought vulnerable to the criticism that in celebrating the poetic over
the practical, he has not allowed sufficient attention to the ethical. His
valorization of the poetic over the productive, without any consideration of
the practical and theoretical in the works of Plato and Aristotle, is a
theme that must be brought to bear on his terrible political decisions in
the 30's and 40's. In fact Heidegger's life keeps intruding into his
philosophical works at a variety of points. This calls into question the
independence of thinking from the intent and life of the thinker that
Heidegger claims.
Another question that I have is how is this critique of Heidegger
self-righteousness? Heidegger has rejected western ethical valuations. This
is played out in the works of Heideggerians who argue that traditional forms
of ethics are technological, inauthentic and lead to the inhuman. They also
argue for an abandonment of these valuations. But the more reasonable tack
on this is that Heidegger's abandonment of Western thought calls for some
reconsideration of the wisdom of such a course. Here is the point where one
can find the basis of a real critical engagement of Heidegger's thought. It
is not enough to simply repeat the question of Being in a way that
presupposes the truth of Heidegger's starting point. But one must circle
around an issue that promises to provide the clearing from within which a
critical assessment of Heidgger's work can finally occur. Heidegger's
political engagement in the '30's, along with his attempts to cover up the
details, is the most fruitful basis for judging the value of his work.
Clearly one finds that his thought can be seen as way in which he
rationalized away his responsibility for what he did. This is a point that
Sheehan brings out in his various works on Heidegger.
As to whether there are any Nazi elements to be found in Heidegger's
texts, well I think that those who reject this ought to reconsider that
position. There are some very alarming things that Heidegger says in essays
like the Letter On Humanism and other post-war essays that lend a lot of
credence to that view. Heidegger's students in the period after the war were
very concerned about the tone of the things that he was saying. In
particular there was a lot of concern raised about his comments on the
Holocaust. Gadamer, Lowith and others were very encouraging of Habermas and
Marcuse when they attempted to get Heidegger to explain his actions. They
felt that an accounting had to be made. So to take up the issue in a serious
way is to finally see what the implications of Heidegger's thought are, to
be able to critically engage his reading of Western values, and then to more
thoughtfully take up the question of Being. My experience is that when these
issues are addressed by Heideggerians, it usually results in the dismissal
of the seriousness of the issues. Then the Heidegger project continues
without a hitch, as if all of this was to be chocked up to a
misunderstanding of what happened. It is the unquestioned acceptance of
Heidegger's critique of the West, his rejection of Europe, America and
traditional political philosophy that is brought to the forefront when his
actions are scrutinized. In the light of these issues Heidegger's answers
are simply found wanting.
In the light of this last point, someone once challenged me as to
why I would subscribe to this list. Well the answer to that question is that
Heidegger's thought is championed as the voice of intellectual liberation.
It is the antidote to all of the western poison that we have been suffering
from. I think that in trying to understand what he says, to see his thought
in the context of his life, one gets a better sense of the truth of such a
view. Heidegger's thought is challenging, worthy of study. But I think that
in the end it is a moral failure, but for precisely that reason it must be
studied.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---