Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:14:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


Rafael,

Thanks for your long mail. And for trying to hammer it in that Hitler
was meant in _Ueberwindung_ - and that it was written in 1942. You have
certainly done a lot of work. This makes it all the more difficult for
me not to give in to your persuasive "alles klar?", "ok?" and above all
the "no, Henk!". 
The least I can do in return, is answering your mail as accurately as I
can. 

First of all the supposed denouncement of the Fuehrer in Heidegger's
_Ueberwindung der Metaphysik_. Michael Eldred has given us the English
translation:

"People think that the leaders have of themselves, in the blind rage of
self-serving greed, arrogated everything to themselves and set it up
according to their own stubborn ideas. In truth, they [the leaders] are
the necessary consequence of the fact that beings have passed over into
the way of errancy in which emptiness disseminates which demands a
unified order and securing of beings. Within this, the necessity of
'leadership', i.e. of planning calculation of the securing of beings as
a whole."

Important here is the question how the above can be read as a
_condemnation_ of Hitler, as you suggest. In all fairness, is this
really a good example of Heidegger's resistance against the regime? I
doubt it.

About the dates of publication and writing of the _Ueberwindung_ you
write:

> 1) Look at the Neske edition carefully: p. 119: 
> the texts _Ueberwindung der Metaphysik_ are 
> written between 1936 and 1946.

And it says that paragraph XXVI is published in 1951. What we have is
the published text, not the written one. I do not have the original
manuscript. Do you know if Heidegger made any changes in it on behalf of
the published version? 

> 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 refer to this passage (Nr. XXVI) 
> and says that according to Poeggeler it was 
> written in 1942

I will not repeat myself.

> 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).

With all due respect, I gather that you have not seen the original
manuscript either. The Gesamtausgabe is _letzter hand_, it means that
the date of writing is less important than the date of last publication.
Besides, in a seminar in 1943 Heidegger still believes that Germany
should have a role in _saving_ Europe:

"[...] wir fragen und fragend wissen wir auch, dass dieses Fragen nur
ein sehr vorlaeufiges Wissen sein kann, dass aber dieses fragende Wissen
sein muss, wenn anders die Deutschen und nur sie das Abendland in seine
Geschichte retten koennen." (GA55:107-108)
[...] we question and questioning we also know that this questioning can
only be very provisional, that however this questioning must be, at
least if the Germans and only they can (should be able to?) save the
occident in its history. 

> 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).

Should we really read Heidegger's remarks on the role of Germany and on
the role of nationalism as a good example of his resistance against
Hitler? And even if one would grant that Heidegger is more grey than
black - is it not asking far too much to see him as the greatest critic
of National Socialism ever? Surely, even the followers of Lou de
Palingboer (Lou the Eelmonger; a Dutch god around 1960 - who died,
against all expectations) are less gullible than those who are willing
to believe this.   

But suppose that one does believe Buchner, what does one believe? 

Your translation:
"The earth appears as the un-world of the err-wandering."

I cannot follow Buchner here. Why does Heidegger believe in 1942 that
National Socialism is all-embracing? And if he does, why is this belief
the severest possible criticism of Hitler cum suis? If the earth as a
whole - Heidegger does not mention Germany - is an un-world because of
National Socialism, National Socialism is the only political movement on
earth that really counts. 
In relation with the quotation above from Heidegger's seminar in 1943,
this does not look well, to say the least. It looks as if Heidegger
counts upon the fact that the earth will be conquered by the Fuehrer. 
By the way, this is very interesting scenario. Also in the light of
Heidegger's personal aspirations as a leading German thinker. 
However, I do not think it probable that Heidegger is this weird.  

Rafael, to recapitulate:
- I cannot read _Ueberwindung_ as an example of Heidegger's courageous
resistance against National Socialism
- NOR can I read it as an example of Heidegger's meek loyalty towards
National Socialism.  

I hope that you will not mind that from here on I will be picking up
bits and pieces from your mail and responding to them out of the strict
context of your paraphrase of _Ueberwindung_.

You write:
> The moral indignations of those who still do not 
> know what is, concern mostly the despotisms 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.

I must be misunderstanding you when I read this. I gather that you are
saying that there is annoyance with Hitler because he cannot stop
persecuting the annoyance that is produced by other leaders who don't
really count. This certainly is a severe criticism of Hitler - for not
having conquered yet the earth and having slain all the other leaders,
who don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Rafael, there must be a miscommunication here somehow. I really cannot
believe that you meant to say this. 
Although it would fit in with some other points touched upon but not
having been considered more closely - on basis of the argument that
Heidegger cannot be this weird.

Again, I do not think that Heidegger is talking here about Hitler. I
still _want_ to believe that he is talking about metaphysics and things
that do go wrong under its influence. 

> 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.

In this context, and in the context of the cited passage from GA55 it is
interesting to note that Heidegger says in _Ueberwindung_ (p 92): 

"Wer heute "Europaeisch" denkt, laesst sich nicht mehr dem Vorwurf
aussetzen, ein "Internationalist" zu sein. Er ist aber auch kein
Nationalist mehr, da er ja auch das Wohl der uebrigen "Nationen" nicht
weniger bedenkt als das eigene."
Who thinks "European" in these days does not let himself to be exposed
to the reproach that he is an "internationalist". However, he is also
not a nationalist any longer because he thinks about the well-being of
the others nations as well as about [the well-being] of his own
[nation]. 

I cannot see what this has to do with metaphysics. IF Heidegger wrote
this in 1942 and meant it as a _description_ of these years THAN, seen
against the background of his seminar in 1943, seen against the
background of what he says in the last sentence of _Ueberwindung_ XXVI
about the earth, seen against the background of all other points not
fully considered thus far - IT IS ... what??? German nationalism (i.e.
National Socialism) as the utmost concern for the well-being of all
nations? 

Rafael, I cannot believe that Heidegger could have meant this. There
must be another interpretation - one I don't really see at this moment.
Unless Heidegger mixed up the 40s and 50s in the publication. 

> 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.

I fully sym-pathise - in the literal sense of the word!

Kindest regards,
Henk




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