[lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger?

Phil writes


I had written a summary of an article found at:

http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/


Heidegger was a supporter of Nazism
His writings are hard to understand
Therefore ban his books and block any future publications

[Robert replied]

"Whatever one thinks of Heidegger, this is hardly the argument."

Robert does not here tell us what he thinks is the argument, but we
can look at another of his posts to give us an idea.

"the Romano/Faye argument ... had the form 'this and that are
inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.'

I have not read the book by Faye so I don't know how the Faye argument
works, but I have read the Romano piece and it is not, as Robert
claims, of the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you
can't have the one without the other.'

Romano begins with this gem:

"How many scholarly stakes in the heart will we need before Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976), still regarded by some as Germany's greatest
20th-century philosopher, reaches his final resting place as a
prolific, provincial Nazi hack? Overrated in his prime, bizarrely
venerated by acolytes even now, the pretentious old Black Forest
babbler makes one wonder whether there's a university-press equivalent
of wolfsbane, guaranteed to keep philosophical frauds at a distance."

In these two sentences can be found all the important parts of the
'argument' that follows: Heidegger was a Nazi,  he was a pretentious
babbler, and publication of his works should be stopped.


I agree that the publication of Heiddeger's works being stopped is
[apparently] a part of, or even the ultimate aim of, Faye's book, and that Romano enthusiastically seconds the suppression or censorship or banning of them. I admit that I ignored this on the grounds that it's simply an exhortation or war cry or some other nonsense on steroids because as an 'argument,' it obviously fails: 'A is a bad person, therefore, her works should be consigned to the flames, or at least hidden from the eyes of children.' Of course, nothing in 'A is a bad' person entails what is meant to follow. So, I let this pass.
What interested me was that the typical response, for the admirers of various artists and public figures who have gone badly astray, namely, that their transgressions, or even felonies, do not diminish their works (what do we really know about the life of the Beowulf Poet?), for it is clear that the works and their transgressions are separate things and can be dealt with separately--that putative defense is irrelevant to, and thus ineffectual against, the case set out by Fraye. Or by somebody.
For, in the case of Heidegger, his acceptance and support of National Socialism is not irrelevant to his work, for his work is an expression of that very sort of Fascism, indeed, so much so that without his acceptance and support of the political and social policies of such Fascism, his work would not be what it is. How it would be different, I cannot say. Aristotle's Ethics was a manual for Athenian aristocrats, yet it is widely taught as an important contribution to moral philosophy. Even this though does not seem to me the right analogy; what the right one would be, I'm too tired to think about further tonight. 

Thanks, as always, to Phil for his comments.

Robert Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: