From: "Laurence Paul Hemming" <lph-AT-dircon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Heidegger in Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:59:02 -0000


Dear Stuart

GA38 has just been published, and I very recently received a copy.  I
haven't had chance to read it thoroughly.  It looks to be a re-working of
earlier courses on logic.

Laurence


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Stuart
> Elden
> Sent: 09 December 1998 15:37
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany
>
>
> Thanks to all who have contributed to the ongoing discussion
> initiated by my
> question about the place of Heidegger in Germany today.
>
> Perhaps inevitably this has shifted into a discussion of
> Heidegger's Nazism.
>
> Stephen mentioned Adorno's & Habermas's bashing of Heidegger
> (both of which,
> for different reasons, are I think, inadequate), and the place of Carl
> Schmitt. Does anyone else see Heidegger's discussion of the polis in
> Introduction to Metaphysics GA40, Hoelderlin's Ister Hymn GA53 and
> Parmenides GA54 as a distancing from/critique of Schmitt's
> concept of the
> political? For a thinker as linked with Nazism as Heidegger,
> it is indeed
> intriguing that Schmitt is widely read, but Heidegger to some taboo.
>
> I think Rafael and I were at cross purposes. My suggestion
> was that the
> early Heidegger's work on biology (ie The Fundamental Concepts of
> Metaphysics GA29/30) showed implicitly his distance from the
> tone of Nazism
> on this point. As Rafael suggests, the Nietzsche lectures are
> the first
> explicit distancing from the NS discourse (though it's there,
> I would argue,
> in the first Hoelderlin course GA39). It is only later that Heidegger
> EXPLICITLY distances himself from the biologistic racism of
> NS: but this was
> one area in which I would suggest he was never close to them.
> GA69 seems
> therefore to be a confirmation of what a careful reader of
> Heidegger might
> expect, though obviously far more direct and political.
>
> I am grateful for the bringing to my attention of GA69, and
> to Michael (once
> again) for his reading, translation and commentary. I guess
> this passage is
> another one of those where if you don't know Heidegger (or
> the context more
> generally) there is the danger for misunderstanding him.
>
> This raises another general question: if it is possible to read in
> Heidegger's works a prolonged critique of NS (the rethinking
> of the polis,
> technology, the will to power, racism, nihilism, etc. etc.),
> then why is
> this not always very clear? I know Heidegger made a remark
> about the need in
> his lectures to keep at the level of ideas, rather than
> direct, practical,
> attacks - because of the dangers he faced in NS Germany, but
> is this enough
> to explain his obfuscation after 1945?
>
> The key text I know of is his letter to Marcuse (Jan 20,
> 1948). H makes the
> following points (amongst other important ones) - my gloss
> and questions in
> square brackets:-
>
> 1.    "You are entirely correct that I failed to provide a
> public, readily
> comprehensible counter-declaration [i.e. to the Rectoral
> address, etc.]; it
> would have been the end of both me and my family [presumably
> this explains
> why Heidegger didn't give it at the time, but later?] On this
> point, Jaspers
> said: that we remain alive is our guilt [is this the only reference in
> Heidegger's written work to his 'guilt'? Interesting, given Tom's
> provocative mail about guilt and violence, which I am not sure I am
> qualified to respond to]".
>
> 2.    "In my lectures and courses from 1933-44 [interesting dates?] I
> incorporated a standpoint that was so unequivocal that among
> those who were
> my students, none fell victim to Nazi ideology [is this
> true?] My works from
> this period, if they ever appear, will testify to this fact
> [does anyone
> know why GA35, 36, 37, and 38 have not yet been published?
> These are surely
> crucial texts]".
>
> 3.    "An avowal after 1945 was for me impossible: the Nazi supporters
> announced their change of allegiance in the most loathsome
> way; I, however,
> had nothing in common with them [this could be read in a
> number of ways]".
>
> These are reasons, certainly, but are they sufficient? I have
> most of a
> problem with point 3.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Once again, thanks to you all - Henk, Bob, Rafael, Michael,
> Stephen, etc. -
> for some interesting thoughts. I came Heidegger a few years
> ago in order -
> originally - to understand Foucault better. I can't help but
> feel there are
> many people out there using thinkers whose careers have been an
> 'Auseinandersetzung' or 'explication avec' Heidegger who
> would learn much -
> as I have - from engaging with Heidegger direct.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---