Date: Mon Feb 13 08:44:36 1995
From: Tom Blancato <tblancato-AT-dolphin.envirolink.org>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche's "reponsibility"?


Perhaps someone with more knowledege could answer this question in light of 
this thread concerning Nietzsche and Nazis:  to what extent should we think 
not simply of "the Nazis" and rather of individual actors,  even,  to use a 
very,  very provacative word (it seems to me),  thinkers like Hitler?  I 
realizes this opens up a whole play of questions of mass guilt,  individual 
responsibility,  "leadership",  knowing or not knowing,  etc.  Yet we know,  
for sure,  of a certain powerful charisma in Hitler's approach,  and a certain 
auto-bio-graphical impulse embodied in Mein Kempf (sp?),  which could easily 
have parallels to that auto-affectional/auto-biographical strand (thread?  
spine?) in Nietzsche.  While we can of course go back and forth on what 
Nietzsche foresaw,  would obviously have abhorred,  etc.,  we might adjust 
this provisional prism I'm tossing up here to bring into focus,  or to split 
out of unity certain intrinsic colors constituting the Nietzschean light (if 
you will).  To do so would of course offend some people,  and I'm sure it 
would be for good reason.  Yet there can be little doubt that it would be a 
very Nietzschean thing to do,  and to do so,  with sufficient perspicuity and 
depth/superficiality of style,  and psychology,  would surely be to go with 
Nietzsche.  When we cast Nietzsche or view him at the periphery of the Nazis,  
we can expect the usual effects of peripheral vision (reductive,  making 
serviceable for the center zone,  fitting conveniently into the world).  Yet 
if Nietzsche is very difficult taken head on,  what should we expect of a dim 
and distant view of him?  The view will of course occur,  just as the 
appropriation by the Nazis occurred.  

So back to this prism:  the auto-bio-graphical, Nietzsche,  Hitler, 
and....existentialism!  A lineup?  Nietzsche,  Hitler, Heidegger,  perhaps,  
inspecting spines,  splines.  No,  Heidegger doesn't "mean" existentialism 
here.  Will To Power,  Mein Kempf, Being and Time.  Monstrously reductive,  
I'm sure.  We can say,  "the Nazis":  category:  bunch of thugs appropriating 
things.  Or we can go back to the question about Hitler the thinker,  the 
emotive, charismatic,  and auto-affectional thinker.  As for Heidegger,  the 
Rectoral Address.  Right?  A prism,  remember:  Nietzsche would allow this,  
so it's OK, right?  A perspective,  it's only a perspective.  This grand 
trajectory of the self can be identified,  in both good and evil cases.  It 
may then be clarified and understood to be the constitution of the self.  This 
may then be popularized as Existentialism.  

Something grand,  something "auto-",  something "bio-",  let's add:  something 
"geo-",  bringing a certain evil into focus?  Isn't that my interpretive 
orient here?  Isn't that the orient anyone has when framing the question 
"Nietzsche/Nazis?"  But let's keep our coats on.  Or should we?  Perhaps we 
should eat ice and brave the cold,  the thin air of this perspective for a 
little while,  in quick draughts:  Hitler the philosopher, Hitler the thinker, 
 and for those afraid of heights,  Hitler the monster.  Hitler,  someone might 
say,  as my scapegoat for the Nazis.  How do you do that?  He's bad,  but 
would still be a scapegoat when used as the sole cause/responsible cause.  

But to deny that cause would be to forget that there is leadership.  That we,  
here,  are participating in a list which operates undisturbedly under the name 
of Nietzsche.  I'm just saying here,  let's not forget that,  if anyone is 
with me at this point.  I cast this formation here in neutral terms,  just as 
scapegoating gets transposed into an unusual usage above,  by which variation 
its structure comes more clear.  The structure in t h i s case:  assembly,  
gathered in the name of X.  Please don't mistake the suggestion here with the 
idea that "any leader is a Hitler",  any "assembly is a group of Nazis",  any 
auto-biograpical instance is Hitlerian,  etc.

Structure.  Derrida questions the very movement by which things get turned 
into "structures",  taken as structures.  A movement akin (in the familial 
sense of kin) to the "clarification of existence" suspiciously thumbnailed 
above.  I'll leave off here.  gotta go.


ArielS72-AT-aol.com writes:
>
>jlelson,
> 
>the nazis were able to manipulate nietzsche's writings to support what they
>were seeking because of their ability to be successful progandist.  every
>revoltuion needs some form of legitimation, be it roooted in the supernatural
>(which is why rome was so successful in spreading the empire .ie
>chiristianty).  what the nazis took from nietzsche is something we are all
>afraid to confront, that is our "natural side" or that part of us that is
>still part of nature.  the will to power is manifest at all times, in
>society, individual will to power is translated into societal will to power.
>the nazis used this as some of justification, what better way than to
>blatantly destroy antoher tangible entity, the jews.  should N be
>responsible, partly, but i think N would say that as society has a firmer
>hold of the "individual", the presence of natuer diminishes to the point that
>it is no longer a significant factor. i think N wants us to acknowledge
>nature as still part of "who we are", becasue thus far because of descates,
>bacon, hobbes, and locke, we chose reason over nature.
> what do you think of heidegger being part of the nazi party early on. this
>with the idea that N was a majot influence on H?
>
>ariel 

---
************************************************************************

"It is only after one ceases to reduce public affairs to the business of 
dominion that the original data in the realm of human affairs will appear, or, 
rather, reappear, in their authentic diversity."  -- Hannah Arendt

Tom Blancato
tblancato-AT-envirolink.org




     ------------------