Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:27:40 +0100
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


Stuart, 

You write: 
> First, didn't Heidegger join the party AFTER he assumed the rectorship? As
> part of his politicisation/academic position, rather than the cause of it.
> I'm fairly sure about this, but I can't provide verification. I've checked
> Ott, but can't find the date immediately.

Correct. See Moerchen's _Aufzeichnungen_ for Heidegger's 
political interests in the party in 1931/1932. Hermann 
Heidegger's gives the 1st may 1933 as the official date
in _Heidegger Studies_. See Safranski's chapter 13 for
more - and not all too partisan background information.

> Second: How do you read the passage in the Ister Hymn lectures (GA53) where
> H suggests that the modern totality of the political, and the failure to
> question the political, is not simply based "as some naive minds think, on
> the arbitrary wilfulness of dictators, but in the metaphysical essence of
> modern actuality in general" (S118)? One could read what H is saying in at
> least two ways:-

> 1. The totality of the political is a necessity in these times - and a good
> thing.

You add here "a good thing". Why? It is not as if Heidegger
is thinking this as something he wants. The state in these
times is not the "ideal" state. Read for more background 
information about the real state Plato's _Statesman_.
_Politikae epistaemae_ is the insight to do what is 
necessary although it is not ideal.
 
> 2. The totality of the political is a result of the modern metaphysics, the
> forgetfulness of being, and is therefore not merely due to the ontic antics
> of dictators, but the ontology of modernity. Therefore there is a much
> larger problem to be addressed.
 
> It seems - to draw a parallel with the reading of racism you gave - you
> would go for reading 1, many other on the list reading 2. On this point at
> least, 2 seems the only valid reading. 

Why do you think that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. Because
of your addition "a good thing"? They are one and the same but
at different levels - at least, without the addition "good" 
(that seems to me without foundation, but I look forward to
more information about it).   
 
> And a critique of Nazism - but of its
> condition of possibility rather than (just?) its manifestation.

This is perphaps too simple. Metaphysical thinking is not 
National Socialist thinking. What about Americanism and 
Communism. Heidegger takes a stance against metaphysics,
not against only one form of it. Besides, if metaphysics
will be "ueberwunden", it is by Germany - in 1943 
Heidegger still believes in its superiority (cf. GA55).

I am looking forward to your criticism of my position.

Kindest regards,
Henk




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