Lawrence, Just wanted to say thank you for this series of posts. Very educational. John On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > *enowning* <http://www.blogger.com/profile/12287486840371546648> left the > following comment in regard to the post "*Heidegger influenced by Spengler > *<http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/11/heidegger-influenced-by-spengler.html> > ": > > Heidegger references Spengler in dozens of places. He was probably the most > popular German intellectual in the 20s. > > *RESPONSE:* > > Indeed, and one can’t help but wonder why Emmanuel Faye chooses to ignore > that fact. I am off to a rocky start in reading Faye’s book. Faye is > calling Heidegger a Nazi in the years before Hitler created the Nazi party. > He > doesn’t see Heidegger embracing the sort of “National Socialism” (even if > it can be called* that*) in the early 20s. For Faye there is only one > political enterprise that Heidegger embraced and it is the Nazism of > Hitler. Nuance of politics doesn’t seem to be one of Faye’s concerns. > > Bearing in mind that* The** Decline** of the West* was first published in > 1920 and was therefore being written by Spengler as World War One was > concluded and in its immediate aftermath, consider the conclusion to his > 19th chapter, where he discusses how Liberal Democracy must of necessity > fail and be replaced by a Caesar-like ruler: > > “Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has > destroyed intellect. But . . . men have learned that in the realm of > reality one power-will* can be overthrown only by another* . . . there > wakes at last a deep yearning for all old and worthy traditions that still > lingers alive. Men . . . hope for salvation from somewhere or other, for > some true ideal of honour and chivalry, of inward nobility, of > unselfishness and duty. And now dawns the time when the form-filled powers > of blood . . . reawaken in the depths. Everything in the order of > dynastic tradition and old nobility that has saved itself up for the > future, everything that there is of high money-disdaining ethic, > everything that is intrinsically sound enough to be, in Frederick the Great > ’s words, the* servant* – the hard-working, self-sacrificing, caring* > servant* – of the State – all this becomes suddenly the focus of immense > life forces. Caesarism* grows* on the soil of Democracy, but its roots > thread deeply into the underground of blood tradition. The Classical > Caesar derived his power from the Tribunate, and his dignity and therewith > his permanency from his being the princeps. Here too the soul of old Gothic > wakens anew. The spirit of the knightly orders overpowers plunderous > Vikingism. The mighty ones of the future may possess the earth as their > private property – for the great political form of the Culture is > irremediably in ruin – but it matters not, for, formless and limitless as > their power may be, it has a task. And this task is the unwearying care for > this world as it is, which is the very opposite of the interestedness of the > money-power age, and demands high honour and conscientiousness. But for > this very reason there now sets in the final battle between Democracy and > Caesarism, between the leading forces of dictatorial money-economics and the > * purely political* will-to-order of the Caesars.” > > Is it more reasonable to imagine that Heidegger was influenced by Spenglerian > diatribes such as this one, or that he had launched himself and his > philosophy, solely from his on mind, on the path that led to Adolf Hitler > and his holocaust? > > This isn’t to say there was nothing wrong in Heidegger accepting Spengler’s > political philosophy, but it is to say that Faye (at least as far as I’ve > read) has gotten has glossed over way too much history. He forces us to > take our attention from the real problem (Spengler and the Ideas of 1914) > and focus on an unreality, Heidegger as the prototype of Nazism. > > Faye’s arguments have a certain plausibility, but he goes too far in > blaming Heidegger for Hitler and the Holocaust. Heidegger was influenced by > the ideas of 1914 and as enowning says above, by Spengler, “who was > probably the most influential intellectual of the 20s.” That is where we > should be looking, not way out at the end of the argument that resulted in > Hitler and his holocaust. And not as though Heidegger sprang full-grown > without antecedents. > > But am I then saying that Heidegger should be excused because he wasn’t > the true creator of the political philosophy that led to Hitler? I hope I > am not saying that. I don’t intend to. Heidegger should be blamed, or at > least disagreed with, but let’s do it for the correct reasons. He > embraced a political philosophy that was as fully experimental as Marxism. > Heidegger should be faulted, just as we should fault the Russian > Communists for believing too long in their ideal. He and they were on the > wrong track. Their experiments failed and we should learn lessons from th > ose failures. > > Communism and National Socialism were begun by idealists. Not all were, > but some were, the most interesting intellectuals were, and Heidegger was > one of those. He believed in the ideal. What we should look for (rather > than the things Faye seems to be looking for) is the point when Heidegger* > should > have known* that National Socialism was a failed experiment. Perhaps he > realized that during the war, but if so what must his thoughts have been > and what conclusions could he have drawn? He would still have believed > that Capitalism was a dead end (Spengler probably convinced him of that); > so what were his choices? He may have thought Communism (a political > philosophy he opposed as strongly as he opposed Liberal Democracy) was > going to win out. Did this mean he should have turned to Communism as so > many in France did? He was an old and tired 56 when the war ended and not > about to turn against all he had written and thought. > > For, after all, did the Nazi-form of National Socialism (rather than the > Spengler form) inform his philosophy? Perhaps not. Faye tells us that it > did, but I don’t trust Faye’s grasp of logical argument. For Faye there > is only the one form of National Socialism and it isn’t the ideal that > Thomas Carlyle and Oswold Spengler wrote about. It was the form put into > action by Adolf Hitler, and Heidegger was associated with it. And therein > lies the fault of Faye’s argument as I see it. His form of argument is “Guilt > by association,” which is, as arguments go, fallacious. He can’t just say (to > exaggerate only a little) “look at the Swastika on Heidegger’s arm, > therefore his philosophy is shot through with Nazism. He needs to prove the > connection in Heidegger’s philosophy, and my impression from the > sloppiness of argument I’ve seen thus far is that Faye isn’t up to it. > > Lawrence Helm > > *www.lawrencehelm.com* <http://www.lawrencehelm.com> > > > -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.wordworks.jp/