From: andrew.glynn-AT-ca.pwcglobal.com
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 16:08:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


Given Heidegger's analysis of modernity, technology and modern Dasein,
refuting any allegiance with the Nazi party would IMHO smack of an "I told
you so ...".   Sometimes silence is the most telling sign of guilt and
disappointment with oneself.

Cheers
Andrew




Stuart.Elden/37:17 AM

Please respond to heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

To:   heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
cc:
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 ---




----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.




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