22 may 1996
Though not a philosopher, and likely not as much a Nazi as Heidegger, there
is always the question of Paul de Man. He is still, in spite of some who
try to ignore him to all our pain, studied in Romantic literature/literary
critical circles. His wartime journalism contains anti-semitic comments.
In spite of his complete renunciation/reversal in later years, this specter
has plagued his criticism as well.
James Stanger jamesst@xxxxxxxxxx
At 04:48 PM 5/22/96 GMT+1, you wrote:
>wilton rodger wrote on Wed, 22 May 96 05:31:55 -2400
>
>> The exchange re Husser/Heiddegger warrants some clarification.
>> H was a Nazi,that is indisputable.That makes me feel quite
>> uncomfortable.
>> Name
>> one other Nazi who is studied seriously today.Now to state that the
>> business of the man has nothing to do with his work is -a
>> position.
>> I would suggest that a philosopher in the service of the Reich
>> has some explaining to do.Is ontology so divorced from history?
>
>Just a few remarks:
>
>1. The Heidegger/Husserl relationship started to break when
>Heidegger published Being and Time. Husserl then realized, that
>Heidegger was not the phenomenologist, that he had expected him to
>be. They parted over philosophical matters. Heidegger claims he never
>signed an order that refused Husserl any access to the libraries in
>Freiburg, and such an order bearing Heideggers signature has never
>been found. The historician Hugo Ott found other letters that are
>equally bad, so he concluded, that Heideggers evidence should be
>accepted. Since there is the dedication to his great teacher even in
>the 1935 edition of Being and Time (which is after the notorious
>order), and the attempt to place it in the 1942 edition, where it was
>omitted under pressure, as Ott proved, it very unlikely, that
>Heidegger referred to Husserl as a non-aryan, as you earlier claimed.
>If you could deliver the origin of that quotation, I would be very
>grateful, since it would probably change my views on that matter.
>
>2. Whoever was professor of anything during the nazi-period was
>certainly not neutral, and all those who did not show their
>disaproval are at least unser suspicion. Heidegger was the most popular
figure in
>German philosophy then. No wonder everyone turned on him after 1945. I
>agree with the statement, that he was a nazi, but i would restrict it to
>the early 30ies. The famous german professor of philology Schadewaldt
>was an ardent nazi, and his works have a high reputation today (just
>one example). One might say: Poetry has a lot to explain, since Ezra
>Pounds poems are still read and interpreted. And what about all those
>who were fierce stalinists and are still studied today? If Heidegger
>is the only nazi that is still studied, it may well be, that the
>reason is his work, which is to important to ignore even if
>you are disgusted by his political activities.
>
>Martin Baeuerle
>Sprachlernzentrum Universitaet Bonn
>0228/735368
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---