Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:47:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


Greetings! It has been some time since I've posted on this listserv. I'm a slow
key
puncher and don't do well with snippets (two counts against me already). But I do
try to
keep up with the drift of the discussion.

Henk, do you really think that there are "heideggerians" who want to go on as if
nothing has happened? There may be those that do, but I don't know of any. Did you
have anyone in mind? I don't know of any dyed-in-the-wool heideggerians who want
to go on as if nothing has happened. To do so--it seems to me-- would be to deny
the very spirit
of philosophy insofar as philosophy is an acknowledgement of reality and its
transformations.
"...those who want to go on as if nothing has happened - as Heidegger himself
wanted to
do."  It seems to me that this sweeps away the whole of H's engagement and
revision of
his own thinking, not to mention his personal statements such as his admission of
shame to
Jaspers. It sweeps away his criticism of Alfred Rosenberg in the first Hoelderlin
lectures
of 1934, it sweeps away his criticism of Baeumler and of Nietzsche in his
Nietzsche lectures; it sweeps away his confrontation with his own assumptions in
the Beitraege; it sweeps away his confrontation with Juenger (as early as the
Andenken course of 1941-
42 (GA 52,p.35), H states clearly that Juenger stands within the metaphysical
context of
of being as will to power) in Ueber die Linie; and it sweeps away Hannah Arendt,
Elisabeth Blochmann, Paul- Oskar Kristeller who knew H far better than we do.
Kristeller told me that he did not think that H was anti-Semitic, but that
Schadewaldt was.
In 1933, H did not withdraw from Kristeller's dissertation because K was Jewish;
Schadewaldt did.
Before you label me as one of those dyed-in-the-wool heideggerians -- whoever they
are -- I am not one of them. H screwed up -- badly. And it was made worse by his
silence.
Without a doubt. However, just as those heideggerians who stick their heads in the
sand
and act as if nothing has happened should be upbraided, so too, those who say that
H wanted to go on as if nothing had happened should also be upbraided. I know this
sounds
harsh, but it seems to me that both sides want the either/or, the black or white
without engaging in the complexity of the case -- yes, I would even say its
humanness - that is, its stupidity, its frailty, its arrogance AND its insight,
its half-steps towards recognition, its ability to see others without at times
being able to see oneself. We should hold H accountable, but we should also accept
whatever gifts he has given us.
With kind regards,
Frank Edler


h.vantuijl-AT-kub.nl wrote:

> 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.
>
> > The problem is in my view, to we (!) deal with his thinking now (!): In my
> > opinion (and I agree with Michael E.), German intellectuals are not grown up
> > to take him (his thinking, the matters to which he pointed to) seriously,
> > they take him as _a dead dog_ (wie ein toter Hund)., so _um so schlimmer for
> > the Germans_...
>
> Heidegger is not only criticized or forgotten in Germany.
> In the Netherlands too his philosophy has become suspect.
> However, there are also those who do not take him
> seriously and regard him as a victim of his own
> "philosophical pathos". There is, of course, also the
> occasional fundamentalist - someone who believes himself
> to be a Heidegger reincarnatus.
> Is it different in France? In Spain? In Italy?
> Elsewhere on the continent?
>
> > It is our (!) complex: to have fear to be treated as Heideggerians... but
> > this is just psychological repression (in the Freudian sense)
> > We (!) want to think _clean_... What is at stake is our (!) relation to H.,
> > not H. _as such_ and, the less, his private shame. We should discuss on the
> > way his thinking first re-acted to NS and then acted on it and on what is
> > still going on. Otherwise we will always return to a pseudo historical
> > debate...
>
> Heidegger is no longer among the living. The problem is
> no longer his. It is indeed our problem now, at least
> the problem of all those of us who want to keep his
> thinking alive - at least the _clean_ part of it. What
> he personally did or did not do is only of interest in
> as far as it mirrors his philosophical thinking. In
> other words, I have the impression that for once we
> agree...
>
> > we have discussed some times american imperialism in this list (see what Bob
> > says about capitalism, Tom about violence etc. etc.) I do not want to
> > consider this as: well you say this, we say that and so on. But fascism is
> > still there in many cultures and parts of the world.
>
> Bob pointed this out, in his unique way. If this is true,
> not only continentals but everyone should be on his guard
> for Heidegger's thinking - till the question of where and
> how it went wrong is answered.
> And in that case it should not only be difficult for
> German but for all intellectuals to write about this
> thinking.
> If there is immaturity, it is not on the part of German
> intellectuals but on the part of those who want to go on
> as if nothing has happend - as Heidegger himself wanted
> to do.
>
> > he went wrong in his radicality and in trans-posing this radicality of
> > thinking into the political arena
> > or: what may be true in philosophical thinking is not politically oportune
> > and viable. He did not make this difference (_draw a difference_ according
> > to G. Spencer Brown), as so many other _great_ philosophers (including those
> > who choose the _right_ political party; Socrates was very conscious of this,
> > I believe). There is something similar here as with the relation between
> > politics and theology, or do I see it wrong?
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ---