On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, William Lenco wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:27:27 -0300
> From: William Lenco <c6v9@xxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Caring-for, and Dasein
>
> I think that it is completely useless to discuss the personal politics of
> Heidegger as if it had any bearing on what he actually had say in his
> philosophy (unless it did and I don't believe that Heidegger is read as if
> it did). He didn't preach Nazism (or any other ism) and I find it almost
> innane that anyone would find it relevant except from a historical
> perspective. From the perch of philosophy what difference does it make?
> Heck, maybe Hegel tortured small animals for fun; Plato *did* like young
> boys. I still really liked their work.
Of the many people who have commented on the relationship of Heidegger's
philosophy and politics, very few have completely separated the two:
Hannah Arendt and Richard Rorty are two examples. Arendt pulls off her
"salvation" of Heidegger by completely separating thinking from worldly
affairs, which completely misses the historical nature of Heidegger's
philosophizing. Anyway, Heidegger himself says he was led to his
involvement through his long-held belief in the dissolution of science as
an effective force in life and via Nietzsche's understanding of the death
of God. Both are integral, perhaps the integral, parts of his thinking,
both prewar and postwar. If his Nazism was some sort of nervous tic, no
one would care, but the fact is that he claims the fundamental impulses
of his thought were the counterpart to the truth and greatness of
National Socialism.
As for preaching Nazism, read his texts from 1933 and 1934 when he was
rector. I'll leave it to you to decide if that counts as preaching.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:27:27 -0300
> From: William Lenco <c6v9@xxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Caring-for, and Dasein
>
> I think that it is completely useless to discuss the personal politics of
> Heidegger as if it had any bearing on what he actually had say in his
> philosophy (unless it did and I don't believe that Heidegger is read as if
> it did). He didn't preach Nazism (or any other ism) and I find it almost
> innane that anyone would find it relevant except from a historical
> perspective. From the perch of philosophy what difference does it make?
> Heck, maybe Hegel tortured small animals for fun; Plato *did* like young
> boys. I still really liked their work.
Of the many people who have commented on the relationship of Heidegger's
philosophy and politics, very few have completely separated the two:
Hannah Arendt and Richard Rorty are two examples. Arendt pulls off her
"salvation" of Heidegger by completely separating thinking from worldly
affairs, which completely misses the historical nature of Heidegger's
philosophizing. Anyway, Heidegger himself says he was led to his
involvement through his long-held belief in the dissolution of science as
an effective force in life and via Nietzsche's understanding of the death
of God. Both are integral, perhaps the integral, parts of his thinking,
both prewar and postwar. If his Nazism was some sort of nervous tic, no
one would care, but the fact is that he claims the fundamental impulses
of his thought were the counterpart to the truth and greatness of
National Socialism.
As for preaching Nazism, read his texts from 1933 and 1934 when he was
rector. I'll leave it to you to decide if that counts as preaching.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------