The problem I have with this statement is that it attempts to
separate Heidegger's conception of the party from Hitler's. This is
something that Heidegger did not do. He made that abundantly clear on many
public occasions, see especially Lowith's account of this in his
autobiography. It seems that the reason this question has a yes and a no is
because Heidegger was less than candid about what his views and activities
were at this time. It is not complicated by anything else. One can assess
the significance of the "step in the right direction" by comparing it with
Marge Schott's recent remarks!
>The saving power is exactly what Heidegger took to be the inner truth and
>greatness of the National Socialist movement. The real question is
>determining in what way the Nazis went in the right direction but were
>nonetheless too limited. This can also be frame equivalently as: what is
>the relationship between Heidegger's "private" national socialism and
>Hitler's public one, such that Heidegger's version can still be a
>national socialism, indeed, the one most in accordance with the inner
>truth and greatness of it, while simultaneously criticizing the noisy
>public version? This is a more complicated question than "Was Heidegger
>a Nazi?" one necessitated by the case itself because the answer to the
>simple question is a paradoxical-seeming yes and no. The yes and no
>paradox cannot be resolved chronologically (a break around 1934, 1938,
>1946, or 1955 depending on who you read) because the sentence about a
>step in the right direction comes from 1966, and also cannot be resolved
>by distinguishing between the man and the philosophy because Heidegger
>himself ties the right direction to an adequate relationship with the
>essence of technology, which is the task of thinking.
>
>I'm not certain what ethical/ontological abyss we jumped into, or even if
>it is an abyss.
>
>Chris
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
separate Heidegger's conception of the party from Hitler's. This is
something that Heidegger did not do. He made that abundantly clear on many
public occasions, see especially Lowith's account of this in his
autobiography. It seems that the reason this question has a yes and a no is
because Heidegger was less than candid about what his views and activities
were at this time. It is not complicated by anything else. One can assess
the significance of the "step in the right direction" by comparing it with
Marge Schott's recent remarks!
>The saving power is exactly what Heidegger took to be the inner truth and
>greatness of the National Socialist movement. The real question is
>determining in what way the Nazis went in the right direction but were
>nonetheless too limited. This can also be frame equivalently as: what is
>the relationship between Heidegger's "private" national socialism and
>Hitler's public one, such that Heidegger's version can still be a
>national socialism, indeed, the one most in accordance with the inner
>truth and greatness of it, while simultaneously criticizing the noisy
>public version? This is a more complicated question than "Was Heidegger
>a Nazi?" one necessitated by the case itself because the answer to the
>simple question is a paradoxical-seeming yes and no. The yes and no
>paradox cannot be resolved chronologically (a break around 1934, 1938,
>1946, or 1955 depending on who you read) because the sentence about a
>step in the right direction comes from 1966, and also cannot be resolved
>by distinguishing between the man and the philosophy because Heidegger
>himself ties the right direction to an adequate relationship with the
>essence of technology, which is the task of thinking.
>
>I'm not certain what ethical/ontological abyss we jumped into, or even if
>it is an abyss.
>
>Chris
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---