Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:13:53 +0100


henk.


>Rafael,
>
>You write:
>> By the way, the course [GA55] is on a Greek thinker and it takes some 390
pages,
>> from which this two remarks should not be used as an _abstract_ for all
what
>> is being said there: take for instance the analysis of _psyche_ in p. 281
in
>> the sense of opening for the open. The whole lecture concernes the
relation
>> between Logos and _logos_, or, in the language of modernity, between
subject
>> and object (p. 296). Human soul goes, no not _deep_ says H. (_tief_
greek_:
>> bathus) but _wide_ signaling and being signaled into the wide
(_weitweisend_
>> and _weitgewiesen_), so that we are never sure what we collect (logos) in
>> our soul (as truth) (p. 305) etc. etc. All this (and much more) has
really
>> nothing (!) to do with NS ideology. It is the opposite of it.
>
>This is the best statement of the problem thusfar.
>Heidegger on Heraclitus contains a wealth of insights,
>of rediscovering century old questions, etc. etc. At the
>same time we are confronted suddenly, somewhere between
>all these brilliant thoughts, with Heidegger's conviction
>that there is somehow a relation between German thinking
>and saving the world - in the midst of the second World
>War! Is this just a loose thought? Or is it the context
>in which we should read GA55 as a whole? How are we to
>decide?


H. was, I think, convinced, that the Germans hat a special role to play with
regard to communism (=nihilism). But he denied very clearly in this
vorlesung any (!) kind of dogmatic-ideology, questioning is his philosophy.
If _you_ identify this (his) view of the German role at this moment of the
role with the ideology of the party, then you are just missing the point. Of
course we (!) can say, there is nothing like a special mission of nation
with regard to... Is there today nothing like this? Look at the US and
others... I do not mean (in case somebody came to the idea I am identifying
the us with the ns...) that this is completely correct or incorrect (are
these appropriate categories?). The kind of _Rettung_ H. is proposing is the
opposity of dogmatic (christianity, for instance, look at the pages before
this passage) or political ideology. He is not saying to the students: well,
you see, we the Germans in general and the ns movement with its fascist
ideology etc. are going to save the planet from the evil (remember? there
was a us president, no long ago, who said something about communism as the
evil...). So, how are we to decide? How were you to decide in case you were
a German student 1942 and you heard this (instead of a clear (!) statement
in favor of the party)? wouldn't you be, in case you were a nazi, say: well
this is not enough: just asking and questionning, questionning what? we have
the answers, we need no questionning, and where are the typical answers of
our party? where is a solid conclusion about the endloesung (at this time in
its terrible reality)? and where is... etc. etc. In case you were not a nazi
student, you could think: well, we can (still) do something with regard to
this war. H. is saying that there is an alternative to the public German
ideology, and in doing this he is taking a risk (!) since in such a
situation to say this (!) is (can be) _toedlich_, just because he is not
saying what he should say (he is no politically correct). And how are _we_
to decide? I mean, we, today? what is our situation? do we not need any (!)
kind of _rettung_ any more? just let capitalism play the play? and violence
etc.etc.? what are our ideologies? how are we to decide, Henk? what do _you_
think?

thanks

Rafael


>
>Thanks,
>Henk
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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