[lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:12:49 +0000 (GMT)
As RP shows, the true philosopher is very unafraid of the question mark.
--- On Mon, 2/11/09, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also, as
> I take McEvoy to be suggesting, if we cast Heidegger
> into outer darkness because of a temporary attraction to
> Fascism;
It was more than "temporary", not quite a one-night-stand at a night rally.
[Inner darkness would do imo.]
> what must we do to all the philosophers who were attracted
> to the equivalent evil, Communism?
But seriously. Censorship of work is not on my agenda: the issue remains
whether H's Nazi proclivities bear on the proper evaluation of his
[metaphysical] work, and negatively impact on its worth.
>And if someone wants to
> argue that Communism was less of an evil than Fascism, I
> would be interested in that argument as
> well.
It seems to me arguable that the ideology and aspirations of Communism are much
less objectionable, indeed in some ways admirable, compared with those of
Nazism. At the same time Communism, perhaps because of its greater moral
appeal, has had greater global impact than Fascism; and in terms of deaths and
other measures it has consequently caused greater damage. Yet this is a
backhanded tribute to its moral superiority to Fascism. Though diametric
opposites if we draw the political spectrum as a horizontal straight line from
left to right, Communism and Fascism are close together if we bend that line
into a circle - extreme left and right close together in their undemocratic,
repressive and totalitarian character: and as their evils derive from this,
their evils can be viewed as on a par. It can also be argued cogently that the
evils of the practice of Communism are not mere perversions of its actual
theoretical basis, but are almost inevitable
consequences of that political model in its totalitarian mode. Nevertheless,
it seems to me much too indiscriminate to therefore say Communism lies on the
same moral plane as Fascism: it is perhaps better to accept that it is on a
morally higher plane as a political philosophy but is all the more pernicious
for this because its moral attractions can blind even good minds to its evils.
That a Communist state could move to properly democratise itself and adopt less
repressive policies [as with the Soviets] seems less incongruous than a similar
move by a Fascist state. Stalinism was not what Marx aimed for [let's say; the
author of "The Red Prussian" might disagree] even if it was what was risked,
indeed made likely, by taking a totalitarian approach to political change: but
the gulags and dachas are a ringing condemnation of the failure of Communism to
achieve its ideals of freedom and equality, whereas concentration camps and
Nazi palaces and racially
motivated genocide hardly signify any failure of Nazi ideals as Nazis see
them.
Though in terms of actual damage Communism may be historically worse than even
Nazism, this is only because as a political form it has been more successful
than the kind of Fascism of WWII Italy and Germany. The measure of actual
damage is important but not decisive of Communism's worth compared to that of
Nazism: here we have to ask what actual damage would Nazism have caused if it
had been as successful worldwide as Communism? Likely worse, and in service of
a more abhorrent ideology.
That H was blind to how abhorrent Nazism was, counts for something surely in
assessing his worth as a thinker [more perhaps than would the fact he was a
child-killer].
D
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
