On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:29 AM, ravi <
ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l