[lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger?

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: