I am inclined to agree with Ted's comments, finding Heidegger's thinking
to be ethically bankrupt myself. But, on another issue, Ted spoke of
Heidegger as breaking from the Western philosophical tradition. I have
always understood him to be reappropriating it, not turning away from it.
The benefit of interpreting H to be reappropriating is that it becomes
possible to see others in the Western tradition holding to something like
the "ontological difference" without abandoning ethics. I am thinking in
particular of Plato, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and, most recently, Emmanuel
Levinas. This, in turn, should allow us to set H up in dialogue with these
thinkers in order to determine precisely where and to what extent the
ethical is missing in H. I believe that, while H does not focus on ethics
in his texts, bringing in such a focus need not mean turning over the
entire Heideggerian enterprise, though certainly it will have to be
moderated a bit.
To be somewhat provocative, I don't think that H's early texts are any
more totalitarian than, say, those of Aristotle, who after all, did have
something to do with a tyrrant. Having an ethics will not save the
dictator. However, being ethical is another matter.
Thanks,
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 ---