Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:14:37 +0100
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


Frank Edler wrote:
 
> "...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. 

Read for Heidegger's reaction after the war the account of 
his friend Petzet. He firmly believed that he had done 
nothing wrong and could not understand the actions taken
against him.
About the "engagement and revision" of his thinking, do 
you want to argue that this is a consequence of a kind of
self-criticism?

> 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.

Mentioning Rosenberg, Baeumler and Nietzsche in one breath
as the bad guys and Heidegger as the good one goes a bit 
too far, don't you think so? As far as I know Nietzsche is
the only one of these four who was not a member of the 
NSDAP. Besides, he was a brilliant philosopher - and that
cannot be said of Rosenberg and Baeumler.
However, it is correct to name them as people who stand 
within the context of being as a will to power. Do you know 
someone who does not stand in this context? Is metaphysics 
already _ueberwunden_ - is it _passe_?
I do not really understand what you mean by sweeping away 
Arendt, Blochmann and Kristeller (why only these three?). I 
have nothing against them. Or do you imply that criticizing 
Heidegger is also criticizing those who remained loyal to 
him - although he had been member of the NSDAP, and agreed 
in principal with their "Endloesung"? That would be
criticizing Levinas' heteronomy and I am not willing to do 
that.    

> 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.

I do not think that Heidegger was anti-Semitic. In an 
earlier mail I argued that Heidegger sees racism as a
necessity in these times. By the way, this view has
been severely crticized by this list - but Occam's 
razor leaves me - by necessity - no other option. 
Why would a great thinker as Heidegger become a member 
of the NSDAP if he did not see racism and "Endloesung" 
as a necessity? Should we look at him in the same way 
as we look at Martin Walser's mother - who needed 
official support to keep her small family hotel going? 
That would be unjust against Heidegger and Martin 
Walser's mother. I would not take Heidegger seriously 
- not as a political and not as a thinking being.

> 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.

If I understand you correctly, I should mend my ways and
value the attempts Heidegger did make after the war. I
think you are right. It is easier to make mistakes in
life than to make amends for it. I some cases it is not
possible - one can only make a gesture, no more. In the
case of Heidegger, this could have been a public 
renouncement of his political views. This could have 
been an explicit criticism of his thinking of 1934-1944. 
But Heidegger could not - and that is the reason why he 
is still suspect. However, he did leave us a monument 
in the great tradition of German thinking. Probably I 
am also one of those dyed-in-the-wool Heideggerians, 
although not one who is only interested in 
white-washing. 

Kindest regards,
Henk



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