File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9812, message 155


From: "Stuart Elden" <Stuart.Elden-AT-clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: "an erroneous calculus"
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:32:21 -0000


Rafael

You wrote,

>what you say next is in my opinion exactly the sense of
>_Machtrausch_: he could shape the sepiritual development of the
>movement etc.


I don't know. I think it is more than _Machtrausch_ at play here.

>With regard to Ott (and Farias): This is a private letter H. to
>Jaspers, and he is talking about his feelings, yes about his
>feelings. I have no right at all to believe he is lying (which could
>be more the case, if he had published this!). Ott is, as you know, a
>second class historian  who wanted to become famous (by means of
>degradating a _famous person_). If you read his book you will see
>that he says: I am a historian, I am not able to judge about his
>thinking. But the whole book is a judgement of this thinking!...
>Farias: a Latinamerican (like me) who wanted to meet H. and could not
>because H. had no time to meet him (the exact circumstances of this
>are not known to me, this is the story as I heard it...). I interpret
>his diffamations as the ones done by a frustrated person.
>But: this does not mean at all that H. (as he himself _confesses_)
>made many _mistakes_ , that he was not able to accept this many
>times, that he behaved then and then in a _shameful_ way, that he way
>no hero like Gandhi, etc. etc. And so what? Are you looking for
>heroes like Gandhi? "I'm sorry to be so radical" Tom wrote. Me too!


I would agree with you entirely in the case of Farias. The book is
appalling. But Ott's book is in another league. It cannot be dismissed as a
the work of a "second class historian  who wanted to become famous (by means
of
degradating a _famous person_)". As a historical, documentary study, I know
of no comparable works on Heidegger *the person*. Yes, Ott says "I am a
historian, I am not able to judge about his thinking". What Ott proves,
beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is more to the political
involvement than H wanted to admit - in terms of actions, etc. The book is a
judgement of this thinking in the sense that it is to the detriment of the
thinker that he had to lie (yes, lie), but Ott doesn't make the same kind of
mistakes that Farias does in denigrating the thinking. Other may have used
his work for that purpose, but we can't blame him for that.

Much more challenging on a philosophical level is the work by Dominique
Janicaud, L'ombre de cette pensee. IMHO this is the best book on H and
Nazism out there, up with Derrida's Of Spirit. I'll take the historical
detail from Ott (what, when, who, etc.) and leave the thought (why and how)
to thinkers.

I'm not looking for a hero. I'm not looking for someone to aspire to be
like. Heidegger is a thinker who I have learnt an enormous amount from. If
his political actions didn't impinge on his thought then I wouldn't really
care about them. But they do, and I want to learn more about them, and about
his perception of them. Given the paucity of comments in public, I'm
interested in what he had to say in private. That's why I'm particularly
interested in the Jaspers and Arendt correspondence.

With best wishes

Stuart




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005