On Fri, 24 May 1996, Ted Vaggalis wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:01:55 -0500
> From: Ted Vaggalis <tvaggali@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Heidegger's Nazism?
>
> 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!
He said in 1967 (!) that NS was a step in the right direction. How much
more candid do you want him to be?
The yes and no results from the acknowledging that Heidegger both joined
and left the party. It has nothing to do with dissemulation after the
fact. NS was a step in the right direction, not the completion of it.
What was the direction? Why was NS Party a step, but not the completion?
What was it in their thinking that limited its move towards the right
goal? Heidegger is consistent in maintaining after the war he had hoped
that the movement would achieve its aims, but that he was disappointed
when it turned out to have a different end. All of this means that
Heidegger had a different aim than the Nazis. I see no reason to doubt
this, particularly when you go back to read the texts of 1933 and 1934,
and discover that his hoped for metaphysical revolution included neither
racism, nor total military mobilization, nor imperial conquest: in short,
the fundamental elements of NS ideology. If one does not see a
difference, one not only does an injustice to Heidegger, one will fail to
gain an insight into the nature of Heidegger's political philosophy.
Incidentally, Heidegger never liked the party or what he derisively
called "Party hacks." He was quite enamoured of Hitler. One gathers
>from his later remarks that he changed his mind about Hitler when it
became obvious (as it should have been in 1933 or 1934) that Hitler was
merely the chief hack.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:01:55 -0500
> From: Ted Vaggalis <tvaggali@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Heidegger's Nazism?
>
> 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!
He said in 1967 (!) that NS was a step in the right direction. How much
more candid do you want him to be?
The yes and no results from the acknowledging that Heidegger both joined
and left the party. It has nothing to do with dissemulation after the
fact. NS was a step in the right direction, not the completion of it.
What was the direction? Why was NS Party a step, but not the completion?
What was it in their thinking that limited its move towards the right
goal? Heidegger is consistent in maintaining after the war he had hoped
that the movement would achieve its aims, but that he was disappointed
when it turned out to have a different end. All of this means that
Heidegger had a different aim than the Nazis. I see no reason to doubt
this, particularly when you go back to read the texts of 1933 and 1934,
and discover that his hoped for metaphysical revolution included neither
racism, nor total military mobilization, nor imperial conquest: in short,
the fundamental elements of NS ideology. If one does not see a
difference, one not only does an injustice to Heidegger, one will fail to
gain an insight into the nature of Heidegger's political philosophy.
Incidentally, Heidegger never liked the party or what he derisively
called "Party hacks." He was quite enamoured of Hitler. One gathers
>from his later remarks that he changed his mind about Hitler when it
became obvious (as it should have been in 1933 or 1934) that Hitler was
merely the chief hack.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---