[lit-ideas] Re: Does Heidegger deserve to be a philosopher?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:54:29 -0800
I just learned that Faye's book is to be available on Amazon, November 24th,
2009, but more interesting is Faye's title: "Heidegger: The Introduction of
Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935"
Neither Romano nor Cohen provide the entire title. They leave out "in Light
of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935."
Does this mean that Faye doesn't intend to attack Heidegger's Being and Time
in the manner of traditional attackers? It is hard to tell. Both Romano
and Cohen seem to have read copies of Faye's book, and of course it was
first published in France in 2005; so they could have read that edition.
Lawrence
From: Lawrence Helm
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:24 AM
To: lawrenchelm1. post@blogger. com
Subject: [lit-ideas] Does a Heidegger deserve to be a philosopher?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/books/09philosophy.html?_r=2
The above article (sent to me by a reader) was written by Patricia Cohen and
published in the NY Times on 11-9-09 and entitled, "An Ethical Question:
does a Nazi deserve a Place Among Philosophers?" It is essentially a review
of Emmanuel Faye's Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy."
Cohen states at the end of her article, "A verbal brawl over Heidegger's
theories should not be surprising, though. After all, the classic American
position on how liberal societies should treat dangerous ideas is worth more
discussion."
Indeed. If we are going to banish non-liberals from our universities and
libraries, we should not overlook Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky.
Cohen's article is much better than the earlier one written by Carlin Romano
entitled "Heil Heidegger!" At least it seems less hysterical.
Insofar as Being and Time and Fascism are concerned, here is what Julian
Young (in Heidegger, Philosophy, and Nazism) has to say on page 55:
"The main task of this chapter is to assess the validity of this, the
central, positive implication claim made with respect to Being and Time.
Does the work, in virtue of its doctrine of 'historicality', we need to ask,
entail fascism? . . .
"The crucial passage responsible for the furore surrounding Heidegger's
doctrine of historicality is very short. It occurs in section 74 and reads
as follows:
'if fateful (schicksalhaft) Dasein, as being-in-the-world exists essentially
in being-with-others, its historicizing is a co-historicizing and is
determined as (bestimmt als) destiny (Geschick). This is how we designate
the historicizing of the community (Gemeinschaft), of the people (Volk).
Destiny is not something that puts itself together out of individual fates
any more than being-with-one-another can be conceived as the occurring
together of several subjects. Our fates have already been guided in
advance, in our being-with-one-another in the same world in our resoluteness
for definite possibilities. Only in communication and struggle (in der
Mittelung und im Kampf) does the power of destiny become free. Dasein's
fateful destiny in and with its 'generation' goes to make up the full
authentic historicizing of Dasein. (BT 384-5)'
"I am the Chief Book-Burner in the New Sanitized Society (NSS), and I am
happy to burn any book as long as the paperwork is filled out properly, but
you haven't done that to my satisfaction, Mr. Faye. You want me to burn
Being and Time because it supports National Socialism and you offer the
above as your proof? I'm sorry, sir. I've read the passage fourteen times
and fail to see the connection.
"Next."
Lawrence Helm
www.lawrencehelm.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.704 / Virus Database: 270.14.59/2494 - Release Date: 11/09/09
23:38:00
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Does Heidegger deserve to be a philosopher? - Lawrence Helm
