Re: Heidegger, Humanism, Regionalism, and Nazism

R. or A. Wendel writes:
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Well, I would tend to agree, provisionally, and in fact I said "a philosophy
>>of authenticity", not "Heidegger", the Heidegger of the question of being,
>>of the turning (which I don't claim to *properly* understand in terms of his
>>own use of that term, but which I have some access to as non-humanistic,
>>etc.). The question could be formulated as to whether the question of being
>>is itself a regional ontology, but there would probably be no place for such
>>a question in the later Heidegger, unless you can read being's fateful
>>grasping of itself according to "fate" and "grasp" along the lines of
>>"region", which I think has something to offer.
>
>Tom:
>Thanks so much for taking time to respond to my comments whatever
>misunderstandings they may have concerning your reflections. Certainly the
>Heidegger of _Being and Time_ does inspire a philosophy of authenticity
>which Sartre embraces. Heidegger moves away from questioning the meaning of
>being out of the horizon of the experience of Dasein, that is the "being
>there" of man, perhaps because it is open to the objection of being
>"regional". No doubt Heidegger took this path as provisional: the task of
>Being and Time would need to be repeated again at "higher" level disvested
>of the tinges of regionalism.
>But my purpose was more so to comment that despite Heidegger's ideological
>adherance to Nazism there is a truthfulness to his thought that goes beyond
>ideology. Perhaps some may feel it is cruel to overlook Heidegger's
>political affiliations. Still, it is crueler to ultimately blame Heidegger
>for a political movement that went far beyond his control or intentions.
>Cruelest however would be to neglect the value of the thought he set in
>motion and that we can appropriate, reflect, and even transform.


I agree. I don't know that much transformation or even much original thinking
about the question of Being occurs on this list, however.


The key to
>this understanding I believe to lie in its "anti-humanism". Because
>Heidegger initiated, or at any rate radicalized, the question of being as
>what is most worthy of thought, as a question that concerns being first and
>man only secondarily, we can leave the carcass of the man from Messkirch
>behind and feast on that which he pointed to as a distant constant star
>throughout his career. We may passingly thank this quaint man and return to
>him if only for the clarity of his vision, for the pointers he left us in
>tracing the furrows of his quest, be it ours. But it is hardly him or his
>ideosysncracies that we should focus on. To point fingers at Heidegger so as
>to neglect the legacy of his thought is a grave mistake we should not allow
>ourselves to indulge in.

Ok, but I wasn't trying to do that (there), and finger pointing I do
concerning Heidegger takes place on a *much* more substantive level.


>No doubt to say so much is to say very little. But in today's climate they
>bear magnification and insistance in opposition to an attitude that has
>gained credibility, that would ultimately declare that Heidegger is debunk
>and his philosophy nothing more than an outgrowth of fascism. Perhaps in a
>merely humanist reading that would be justified: Heidegger's thought would
>remain regional in a manner that neither Husserl nor you are expressing,
>that is the very regional provincialism of a man whose thought never
>transcended the localism of an ideology that fed peculiarly out of the dark
>stirrings of a German peasant soul. That reading is worth challenging and it
>is worth noting why it is vulnerable to challenge, even if we should move on
>to other things.
>Danke schein,
>Bob
>"'Heidegger', then will take the place here of a certain discursive
>regularity."Reiner Schurmann, _Heidegger on Being and Acting: From Principles
>to Anarchy_
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Ok.But how can we approach, staying in some ways within the discursive
regularity provisionally called "Heidegger", somethinking like original
thinking? Original not as in *necessariy* new (although perhaps the "new" has
to be explored), but as in originating out of our own engagement of Being?


---
Where there is peace, there is war.

Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)




--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: