Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:37:45 +0100


Henk,

>Rafael,
>
>You write:
>> But dear Bob, just read (!) what H. wrote 1942 on Hitler: "Der Fuehrer
ist
>> der Aerger,..." all this (Parr. XXVI of the essays: _Ueberwindung der
>> Metaphysik_ published in Vortraege und Aufsaetze, Vol 1., pp. 63ff) This
>> are text which are never (!) cited by people who said H. did not put his
>> thinking back on the right track.
>
>I cannot follow you here at all. Heidegger points out that
>Those who accuse leaders [!] of blind rage, self-interest
>and willfulness are mistaken. Leadership is necessary in
>times like these.
>Besides, he published this paragraph in 1951.
>


where does he say this? and when? is it no important that he wrote this in
1942? and not in 1951?


>Some very interesting parallels can be drawn between
>Heidegger's political thinking and Plato's. I
>sometimes have the impression that Heidegger is far
>more influenced by the political thinking of his
>predecessor than he knows - or wants us to know (?).
>There are and have been many corrupt theologies -
>and highly influential ones too. One cannot be
>critical enough. However, this must not shy people
>away from religion. The same goes for philosophy.
>


you probably know the anecdote of a colleague who met H. some time after
1934 (I think it was in the train!) and asked him:
hallo, back from Syracuse?
H. thinking was, contrary to Platon, _worldly_ thinking. So, in some way it
took him less effort to project it into the political arena. Plato was
coming from _above_.
There is no definite criterium, in my opinion, for protecting oneself
completely (!) from misleading philosopical projections into politics. The
only thing that helps (and this is even not sure every time and everiwhere)
is - caution. Take the case H. would have not accepted the rectorate and
would have continued his thinking on the Greeks, Hoelderlin etc. Then we
could have said: oh, he was no able to risk something into the real world,
he was just philosophysing about the world etc. What is for us difficult to
separate is the view of 1933 without what happened afterwords. But look at
what H. did not afterwords: he did not went to Berlin, he did not become a
chief ns personality (as for instance Gehlen, who is still very high
appreciated in the academia!). So I must confess, that the warnings about
possible fascism are mostly a result of refusing the things he was talking
about (and the way he was talking about them). I am convinced that we need a
new language for dealing with many of his questions (this was also his
conviction), and that many Heideggerians (as well as Hegelians, Marxists
etc.) just use his terminology and write academic papers... But take for
intance the way he liberated thinking with regard to the classics: most of
what we do today is unthinkable (take this word as such!) without H. We have
a productive approach to the history of thinking that is possible through H.
Other points are still there, and may be there for a long time, like his
conception of existence. But take his view of technology as _Gestell_ : I do
not know how we could think better about our Information-Gestell, even if H.
could not foresee what came after, say, 1954 (whe he talked about
cybernetics and language as information). His view of _casting being_ (as
brilliantly tra-duced by Michael E. in this list), liberating ontology from
firm metaphyiscal frames, his view of care and the _applications_ to
psychoanalysis (daseinsanalysis). So, there is a lot to take from this
thinking, without having the fear (!) of ns etc. This fear sometimes leads
to a paralysis of thinking. Take, finally, his questioning of god, his
criticisms on the god of metaphysics. This was a pivotal thinking for, for
intance, karl rahner and others. H. was an _opening_ thinker (in some way,
this was also the case with karl rahner, who did not write a systematic
dogmatic, like other theologians in this century...). His way of thinking
was questioning and leting himelf become questioned by what shows itself
(behind the wall and over-paintings of traditions: his concept of
_destruction_ is basic for, for instance, Derrida), etc. etc. This is by no
means apologetic! it is just apo-logetic, saying back, and from far away,
and going to other places and questions, taking distance and going through.
rafael
















>In the case of Heidegger, I _just_ plead for a
>critical attitude until we know where and how -
>i.e. what to avoid.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Henk
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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