Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:54:07 +0100


Henk,



>Rafael,
>
>You write:
>> where does he say this?
>
>He says this in the passage you refer to. It is about
>the role of leaders [not: leader!] in these - horrible
>- times.
>


thanks Michael for unswering this. I have nothing to add.

>> and when? is it no important that he wrote this in
>> 1942? and not in 1951?
>
>The text in my Neske edition is a reprint of the
>article of 1951. I do not have the original text. And
>therefore cannot know what Heidegger wrote during the
>war. And will we ever? It all depends on Hermann
>Heidegger, the son.
>


you are wrong, and you should better first:
1) Look at the Neske edition carefully: p. 119: the texts _Ueberwindung der
Metaphysik_ are written between 1936 and 1946.
2) take a look at: Hartmut Buchner ed.: Destruktion und Uebersetzung
(Michael pointed to this book already, with regard to the relation between
H. and Japan: an exciting dialogue: I suggest to discuss (more) about this),
p. 52: there Buchner refersto to this passage (Nr. XXVI) and says that
according to Poeggeler it was written in 1942
3) there is textual evidence for this: H. mentions the chemist R. Kuhn who
received _in this year_ the Goethepreis of the city of Frankfurt. This was
in 1942. Alles klar?
(Richard Johann Kuhn, Vienna 1900 - Heidelberg 1967, since 1929 in
Heidelberg, Director of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute fuer medizinische
Forschung, 1938: Nobel Prize in Chemistry (work on carotinoid and vitamin).
H. refers to the possibilities of planning and managing the production of
_male and female living beings_ , as well as of _factories for the
artificial generation of human material_. Well, no, Henk, H. is not argueing
in favor of that, really, he is not doing this.
The end of this passage is from a metaphysical point of view, according to
Buchner, one of the more clear and shaking texts ever written with regard to
national socialism (_mit das Schnedendste und Erschuetterndste enthaelt, was
denkerisch je auch ueber den Nationalsozialismus gesagt worden ist_ p. 53).
This was publish indeed in 1951: so H. did not remain silent with regard to
NS, Alles klar? This text is, of course, not mentioned by Ott, Farias, etc.
Alles klar?
The final text (but, please, take a look a the whole text, if you read it,
it is difficult to understand a lot of the criticisms to H. in these
matters:

_Die Erde erscheint als die Unwelt der Irrnis: Sie ist seynsgeschichtlich
der Irrstern_
(my transl.: The earth appears as the un-world of the err-wandering (Irrnis
is difficult to translate): the earth is from the point of view of Being,
the err-wandering star) (irrre means also mad, crazy, mislead (I was
thinking about the word _planet_ from greek: _planao_: with exactly this
meaning of err, mislead etc.)

The text begins with a criticism of die _ideas_ and _values_ (remember the
text from the Introduction to Metaphysics) (as proclaimed by the NS), the
_proclamation_ of the _action_ (_Tat_) and the necessity of the _spirit_
(_Geist_). No, Henk, H. is not propagating this, he is criticizing this. The
next sentence: "All this fits already into the mechanism of being well armed
(_Ruestung_) of the order procedures" No, this is not Adorno, this is H.
"Human being (_der Mensch_: not the _dasein_ just the people, ok?) has the
character of raw material" (No, this is not Marx, this is H., hi Bob). "This
long war goes in its length..." (another text, where you can see, that this
cannot be written 1946 or so, alles klar?) "slowly not in peace from the
former kind, but in a situation, where the being-in-war (das Kriegsmaessige)
is not any more experienced as such and the situation of peace (das
Friedensmaessige) has lost any sense and content. The err-wandering does not
know any kind of truth of being; instead of that it develops the complete
well armed order and security of any kind of planning and everywhere." (...)
"The moral indignations of those who still do not know what is, concern
mostly the despotims and the claim to power of the _Fuehrer_" (H. uses the
plural her, but not in the next sentence, Henk, not in the next sentence
where he writes: "Der Fuehrer ist der Aerger... The Leader (well, you would
probably prefer the word Hitler at this point, won't you? but there was
really only one Fuehrer, and a lot of Fuehrer) is the annoyance (I do not
know if this is a good translation: Aerger  means: trouble, to be angry or
infuriated, offend, outrage...) who cannot stop persecuting the annoyance
that is apparently produced by the other leaders, but who are not the (real)
agents.
H. says that there is no more difference between the production and managing
of  the _human material_  and the one of between the poet and the boy who
uses raw material for the production of the books...
He speaks about the _Fuehernaturen_ who are, according to their _instinkts_
in manager positions  (Steuerungsorgane).
There are no more differences between the nations and the cultures
(Voelker): no multicultural differences, as we say today...
no difference between war and peace, between the national and the
international
"A human being (ein Mensch, not a Dasein, just a person, ok?) without
uni-form (ohne Uni-form_) makes today (well: hardly 1946, don't you think?)
the impression of something unreal (Unwirklichen), of something that does
not belong to the (establishment) any more" (No, Henk, H. is not making a
plea for using uni-forms, it is the other way round, ok?
etc. etc. etc. (Excuse me, once more, my bad English, it is really hard work
(yes, hard work) to write all this in English (and to think all this in
English, yes, Tom Brancato, it is hard work for me. But this is another
story)

kind regards.

rafael



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