so all this flap shows is that Heidegger was an extremely poor judge of
any of the nazi goals and people. He was then not only a nazi but a
stupid one.
On Fri, 24 May 1996, Christopher Rickey 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.
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
any of the nazi goals and people. He was then not only a nazi but a
stupid one.
On Fri, 24 May 1996, Christopher Rickey 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.
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---