Re: [Pen-l] Heidegger and Nazism [was: Exchange on I.F. Stone

[ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
> Again, I don't know much (if anything) about H, but let's look at
> things from a philosophical point of view, i.e., not trying to blame H
> the person but to gain understanding about his philosophy. If one
> takes any Nazi-related components of his philosophy out of his oeuvre,
> does it weaken or strengthen his philosophical perspective, making it
> less or more coherent? (it can still be wrong if it's coherent, i.e.,
> internally consistent.) If it strengthens his philosophy, that's a
> point in his favor.

Again, I am not a Heidegger scholar, but his dalliance with the party,  
IMHO, in no way influences or decreases the insights of his works. The  
quoted text (from the WSWS) is a perfect example. Heidegger is  
concerned with the "encounter between global technology and modern  
man" -- I believe what he has offered in his analysis of this central  
issue (IMHO) is priceless and prescient -- and has nothing to do with  
Nazism which he delusionally believes has been hijacked from an  
attention to this concern of his.


> BTW, I can't think of any better basis for calling H a "Nazi" than
> noting that he was a card-carrying member. Just having "some sympathy"
> for the Nazis does not make one a Nazi, just as having "some sympathy"
> for the CPUSA during the 1930s does not make one a Stalinist.


Hence my parenthetical point that the Heidegger smear is more  
"technically accurate". But given what the term "Nazi" invokes and in  
these cases is intended to invoke, carrying a party card is a very  
small criterion for being associated with that label and all it  
entails. There are much better bases for such guilt by association:  
for example, being an officer in the SS who ordered the extermination  
of certain groups.


> "Some
> sympathy" can be mixed with antagonism (while the CPUSA sometimes is
> accurate in their positions).


Again, as the quote shows, there was a twisted form of antagonism in  
Heidegger's association with the party. As early as 1935 he was  
already unhappy about the turn (as he saw it) that the party or  
movement had taken.


> But one chooses to join a party. H
> didn't have to join, unless he was blackmailed or extorted -- or was
> just a coward.



But for the most courageous people, I am not sure how much of a choice  
exists in these matters. I am a coward, for instance, for contributing  
about 50% of my tax payments towards the butchering of foreign people.  
But of course Heidegger was a much bigger coward and an ambitious and  
deluded one.

	--ravi

--
Support something better than yourself ;-)
PeTA       => http://peta.org/
Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l