Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:56:40 -0000


Anthony, you wrote:-

>What form of government would not presuppose metaphysics, which >Heidegger
is trying to overcome? In other words, if Heidegger's endorsement >of Nazism
was due to some personal lapse precisely because he sought to
>overcome metaphysics whereas Nazism presupposed some stage of
>metaphysics, then it seems that this would apply to ANY form of government
>whatsoever (if indeed any form of government presupposes some >metaphysical
stance). Thus, the tension would not be between Heidegger's >philosophy and
Nazism PER SE, but between it and any particular form of >government at all.
It would then seem that the endorsement of any form of >government
whatsoever would have been a personal lapse. Does Heidegger's >philosophy
require complete political neutrality?

That's an interesting question. It strikes me as an essential one to ask in
the light of our discussions on this list. My initial take on it is that any
form of government would presuppose some metaphysical stance, because any
conception based on the modern understanding of the political would too. I
think this might be behind H's rethinking of the political in the Hoelderlin
and Parmenides lectures (GA53 and 54). Political is derived from the word
_polis_, and therefore our understanding of this term shapes our
understanding of the political. But what we do today, H argues, is take our
understanding of the political and use it to understand the _polis_. If we
rethink the _polis_ we can have a new understanding of the political, and
one not based on metaphysical assumptions (if indeed H IS able to overcome
metaphysics).

H does seem disillusioned with the political in toto in the light of his
'greatest blunder'. His later philosophy doesn't require political
neutrality; rather it requires distance from the political, for us to
rethink what this word means, as Americanism, Communism and Nazism are all
based on the same metaphysical outlook, the same understanding of the
political: which does not mean their politics are the same.

As I said, this is an initial take. It's a complicated issue, and I'd be
interested in other views.

I hope this may go some way to explaining my position on this more fully to
Henk. BTW Henk, I added the 'good thing' to that mail because I was trying
to show - as a parallel - how you were reading the racism comments. I think
Michael recognised this in his post following mine. To say something is a
necessity, i.e. inevitable in these times is _not_ necessarily to approve,
but that seemed to me to be characterising your responses. On the more
substantive point about the Statesman I will have to give this some thought.

As a final point, I think Heidegger was a party member until 1945 (though he
resigned the Rectorship in 1934, he didn't leave the party). Someone
suggested he left the movement in 1934: i don't think that's correct. I'm
slightly puzzled by Henk's dates of 34-44. Perhaps you could explain?

Best wishes

Stuart



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