At 11:45 AM 5/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
Ted Vaggalis responds to the above:
Here is where I think that there is too much naivete in regard to claiming
that Heidegger had different aims than the party. Assuming that you are
right to claim that Heidegger had other aims, what exactly were those aims?
That is what must be questioned. Given the various accounts by people who
knew Heidegger at the time and contradicted his public statements, one thing
clearly comes out is that Heidegger took the opportunity to advance his own
self-interests. He settled old scores with people that he did not like, with
colleagues that he suspected, etc. He clearly had in mind not Germany's
interests, but his own. This is not speculation, but what documents offer
here. This is why I would argue for examining what the links are between
Heidegger's writings and his life. At what point do they cease being
philosophical and start becoming more a matter of masking self-interest. One
could speculate (but it would be no more than that) that Heidegger's
critique of Nietzsche becomes more prominent at this time in his life
because Heidegger is most distressed at N's claim that philosophical views
are merely expressions of self-interest. The only point in raising this
issue is that over time Heidegger's complicity has not been fully
understood. Many read Heidegger without an awareness of the facts. Why this
is so crucial is that Heidegger's writings are seen to be an alternative to
the traditions of Western ethical thinking. That tradition is taken to be
bnkrupt, inhuman, etc. And yet it seems ironic that Heidegger would be the
basis for a rejection of, say, Kant.
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.
This is a point that many who knew Heidegger at the time have claimed is
absolutely false. He was never disengaged from the party. Here is where
Ettinger and Lowith are invaluable. Those who were there, who have nothing
against Heidegger, they provide abundant testimony to the inaccuracies of
Heidegger's recollections.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---