Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany/Epistamae Politikae
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:12:52 -0000


Henk,

>Stuart,
>
>You write:
>> [...] it seems to me as if Heidegger's
>> interpretation of the call for philosopher-kings in Plato's Politeia goes
>> through a subtle shift between 1932/3 (GA34 and the Rectoral Address) and
>> 1936/42 (GA40 and GA53).
>
>Is it allright with you when I change the name of the
>subject into "Epistaemae politikae"?

Why? I know this is the title of Aristotle's book, but it isn't directly
relevant here.. or is it? Why?

Heidegger's
>treatment of the philosopher king is not - directly
>- related to the discussion of Heidegger in Germany
>and all it does or does not entail.


I don't agree with this. For example GA34, S100 (1932):

"Concerning the ‘state’ [Staat] (in this way we translate _polis_, not quite
adequately), and the question of its inner possibility, according to Plato
what prevails as the highest principle is that the proper guardians
[eigentlichen Wächter] of the being-with-another of humans, in the oneness
of the _polis_, must be philosophical humans. This does not mean that
Professors of philosophy should become chancellors of the Reich
[Reichkanzler], but that philosophers must become _phylakes_, guardians. The
domination of the state and its ordering must be guided through by
philosophical humans who, on the basis of the deepest and widest, freely
questioning knowledge, bring the measure and rule, and open the routes of
decision".

Philosophers are seen here as guardians, guides to the conduct of the state,
those who can lead the leader, den Führer zu führen. Although Heidegger
hints at its inadequacy, he translates _polis_ as Staat, and uses a word
that cannot fail to have nationalistic overtones: Reichkanzler. This
attitude – here suggested as an interpretation of Plato – is given concrete
expression when Heidegger takes over the Rectorship. It is notable that
throughout the Rectoral Address Heidegger uses the word ‘state’, never
explicitly linking it to the word _polis_, but never denying this is the
reference intended. The first line of the Address suggests that “assuming
the Rectorship means committing oneself to leading [Fuehrung] this
university _geistigen_” (Die Selbsthauptung: S9).

This leading calls for a new kind of questioning, one which will “ground
knowledge [Wissenschaft] once again directly in the fruitfulness and
blessing of all the world-shaping forces of man’s historical essence, such
as: nature, history, language; the Volk, custom, the state; poetry, thought,
belief; sickness, madness, death; law economy, technology” (S13-14)

“Because the statesman and the teacher, the doctor and the judge, the pastor
and the master builder lead the Volk in its existence as a Volk and a state
and watch over this existence in its essential relations to the
world-shaping forces of human being and keep it focused, these professions
and the education for them are entrusted to the knowledge service” (S16).

Then in GA53 (1942) Heidegger suggests that the contemporary interpretation
that everything in Greek thought is politically determined is a mistake, but
one which is being put to the cause of National Socialism. Heidegger argues
that it is evident that “the ‘political’ is that which belongs to the
_polis_ and can therefore be determined only in terms of the _polis_. Yet
the converse is precisely not the case”. If the political derives from the
_polis_, then we cannot use our understanding of the political to explain
the _polis_: “The _polis_ cannot be determined ‘politically’. The _polis_,
and precisely it, is therefore not a ‘political’ concept” (S98-9).

Alternatives to seeing it as political would include seeing the _polis_ as
‘state’, or as ‘city’, but Heidegger argues that the first leads us to
relate it to modern state formations; the second is distinguished from
village only because it is ‘stately’, again leading to confusion. Instead,
“perhaps the _polis_ is that realm and place around which everything
question-worthy and uncanny [Unheimliche] turns in an exceptional sense. The
_polis_ is _polos_, that is, the pole, the swirl or vortex [Wirbel] in which
and around which everything turns” (S100). The _polis_ is therefore “neither
merely state [Staat], nor merely city [Stadt], rather in the first instance
it is properly ‘the stead’ [‘die Statt’]: the site [die Stätte] of the abode
of human history”. The essential thing about the _polis_ therefore is this
site of abode: which means that the political “in the originary and in the
derivative sense, lies in its being the open site of that fitting destining
[Schickung] from out of which all human relations toward beings… are
determined” (S101-2). To be political means to be at the site of history.

Heidegger takes this forward by questioning the suggestion in Politeia that
either philosophers should become rulers, or the rulers philosophers, or
there will be no end of trouble for the _polis_ (473c). Heidegger argues
that Plato does not mean that philosophers should assume the business of the
state, because the _polis_ is not the ‘state’; nor should rulers “‘busy
themselves’ with ‘philosophy’, as though it were something like collecting
beetles”. Instead, Heidegger argues, Plato’s statement means that the
_polis_ – as the site of abode of human history – is best served by
philosophers, who stand in the radiance and light of being. This does not
mean that everything is determined in terms of the political, or that the
political has priority. “The doctrine of the unconditional priority of the
political on the one hand, and on the other hand the conception of the
_polis_ as the ground that is worthy of question and as the site of beings,
are separated from one another by an abyss”. Neither Greek nor contemporary
political thought are served by their conflation (S105-7).

There would therefore seem to be a distancing from the attitude of the
Rectoral Address, framed around an engagement with Politeia, specifically
the philosopher-kings passage, and the translation/interpretation of _polis_

>
>I become more and more convinced that Heidegger's
>GA53 (and also GA40) is not based on the Politeia
>but on the Statesman. Could that account for the
>shift you mention?

>The Statesman is an extensive survey of the
>_epistimae politikae_ as seen by Plato. His view
>is multi-layered and all these layers seem to be
>treated one after the other by Heidegger in his
>second part of GA53.
>The fallacy of perceived coherence is always
>lurking on the background but keeping that in
>mind - in the context of Plato's Statesman
>Heidegger's GA53 becomes a complete description
>(and an astoundingly profound one) of what it
>means when Aristoteles says: "phusei anthroopos
>politikon".

That's interesting. I'll have a look at the Statesman when I get a chance,
and follow this through. Whatever, it strikes me that H engages with Plato
as part of a response to his own trip to Syracuse.

Best wishes

Stuart



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