On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Laurence Paul Hemming wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:56:05 +-100
> From: Laurence Paul Hemming <laurence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Heidegger and Marx: Reply to Iain Thompson
>
> Iain
>
> Thank you for your post - I had been looking forward to it. If I have =
> understood you correctly, I concur that we seem in broad agreement, =
> which makes the disagreements so much more interesting!
>
> I think I agree with your assessment of van Buren. What interests me =
> most of all in this particular revision of American Heidegger =
> scholarship (along with people like Kisiel) is that we appear to have =
> moved to a position where the "real" Heidegger is his early + late =
> works, thereby sidestepping Sein und Zeit, the Grundprobleme der =
> Phaenomenologie, the Kant book and the lectures on Leibniz (and even the =
> notorious Einfuehrung in die Metaphysik). This simply will not do! It =
> is Karl Loewith's argument against the later Heidegger reversed, for it =
> "de-nazifies" Heidegger by demonising the very work which he appears to =
> be in dialogue with all his life - Sein und Zeit. A far stronger case =
> than has yet been made must be advanced to show that either there is a =
> bent towards Nazism in Sein und Zeit, or that when in the later works =
> Heidegger cites Sein und Zeit or alludes to it, he is either lying or =
> deliberately misinterpreting his own work (hence the reference to =
> Loewith, who priveleged "existence philosophy" over what he did not like =
> in Heidegger's later work, and so invented the notion of the turn in =
> order to satisfy the possibility that Heidegger had in some sense =
> "betrayed" himself).
If I may interject myself, Loewith thought that Sein und Zeit was a
powerful work, although it was not up to his earliest lectures. It was
the later Heidegger he thought was silly. I find that van Buren
consciously or unconsciously echoes or repeats many of Loewith's
conclusion. Plus, Loewith did not invent the Kehre; Heidegger did. It
was a staple of his self-interpretation. See the letter to Richardson
for an endorsement of this line.
As for the pre-Sein und Zeit Heidegger being the strongest, it is an
opinion held by many of his students of that time, including Gadamer,
Loewith, Arendt and Jonas, to name the most famous of them.
As for Loewith's judgment of the Nazism of Heidegger and Being and Time,
he has two conclusion: that it was the groundless decisionism that made
him prey to the currents of events, and less well known, that Heidegger
was attracted to the sheer movement of the Movement. Although they are
related, the first says that there is no ground, positive or negative,
for either joining or resisting the Nazis; the second says that there is
a positive reason for thinking that Nazism was the best political force
around.
I would contend (strongly) that there is enough =
> evidence in the fabric of the language of Sein und Zeit itself to =
> suggest that Heidegger is always reading and re-reading, not misreading =
> his own work. As for the discussion about Heidegger the man versus =
> Heidegger's works, well I take your point, whilst also allowing the work =
> to transcend the ambiguity of the man - in the sense that ambiguity more =
> properly belongs to our lives and we should at least be protected from =
> the forensic scalpels of those "scholars" who would seek to extrapolate =
> the meaning of thought from a psychologising inference based upon their =
> reading of "events". To take a different line seems to me to end up =
> with the kind of biographical butchery indulged in by people like Ott.
Any proof of this "biographical butchery?" Most people find Ott's
research quite fair, albeit limited by access to key sources that will
undoubtably reveal more as they get published. He did subtitle it
"Underway to a Biography", after all. If there is a fault, it is that
Ott proves much less than he thinks; he shows, more or less, that
Heidegger was not honorable or an admirable character, and that he was an
opportunist.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:56:05 +-100
> From: Laurence Paul Hemming <laurence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Heidegger and Marx: Reply to Iain Thompson
>
> Iain
>
> Thank you for your post - I had been looking forward to it. If I have =
> understood you correctly, I concur that we seem in broad agreement, =
> which makes the disagreements so much more interesting!
>
> I think I agree with your assessment of van Buren. What interests me =
> most of all in this particular revision of American Heidegger =
> scholarship (along with people like Kisiel) is that we appear to have =
> moved to a position where the "real" Heidegger is his early + late =
> works, thereby sidestepping Sein und Zeit, the Grundprobleme der =
> Phaenomenologie, the Kant book and the lectures on Leibniz (and even the =
> notorious Einfuehrung in die Metaphysik). This simply will not do! It =
> is Karl Loewith's argument against the later Heidegger reversed, for it =
> "de-nazifies" Heidegger by demonising the very work which he appears to =
> be in dialogue with all his life - Sein und Zeit. A far stronger case =
> than has yet been made must be advanced to show that either there is a =
> bent towards Nazism in Sein und Zeit, or that when in the later works =
> Heidegger cites Sein und Zeit or alludes to it, he is either lying or =
> deliberately misinterpreting his own work (hence the reference to =
> Loewith, who priveleged "existence philosophy" over what he did not like =
> in Heidegger's later work, and so invented the notion of the turn in =
> order to satisfy the possibility that Heidegger had in some sense =
> "betrayed" himself).
If I may interject myself, Loewith thought that Sein und Zeit was a
powerful work, although it was not up to his earliest lectures. It was
the later Heidegger he thought was silly. I find that van Buren
consciously or unconsciously echoes or repeats many of Loewith's
conclusion. Plus, Loewith did not invent the Kehre; Heidegger did. It
was a staple of his self-interpretation. See the letter to Richardson
for an endorsement of this line.
As for the pre-Sein und Zeit Heidegger being the strongest, it is an
opinion held by many of his students of that time, including Gadamer,
Loewith, Arendt and Jonas, to name the most famous of them.
As for Loewith's judgment of the Nazism of Heidegger and Being and Time,
he has two conclusion: that it was the groundless decisionism that made
him prey to the currents of events, and less well known, that Heidegger
was attracted to the sheer movement of the Movement. Although they are
related, the first says that there is no ground, positive or negative,
for either joining or resisting the Nazis; the second says that there is
a positive reason for thinking that Nazism was the best political force
around.
I would contend (strongly) that there is enough =
> evidence in the fabric of the language of Sein und Zeit itself to =
> suggest that Heidegger is always reading and re-reading, not misreading =
> his own work. As for the discussion about Heidegger the man versus =
> Heidegger's works, well I take your point, whilst also allowing the work =
> to transcend the ambiguity of the man - in the sense that ambiguity more =
> properly belongs to our lives and we should at least be protected from =
> the forensic scalpels of those "scholars" who would seek to extrapolate =
> the meaning of thought from a psychologising inference based upon their =
> reading of "events". To take a different line seems to me to end up =
> with the kind of biographical butchery indulged in by people like Ott.
Any proof of this "biographical butchery?" Most people find Ott's
research quite fair, albeit limited by access to key sources that will
undoubtably reveal more as they get published. He did subtitle it
"Underway to a Biography", after all. If there is a fault, it is that
Ott proves much less than he thinks; he shows, more or less, that
Heidegger was not honorable or an admirable character, and that he was an
opportunist.
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------