[lit-ideas] Re: Heidegger's philosophy and Christianity
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:28:27 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While there might
> be in some cases a connection between a
> philosopher’s politics
> and his philosophy, and while several writers have assumed
> that there is a connection between
> Heidegger’s
> philosophy and his politics, I
> can’t visualize
> what that connection might be.
[It'll be abstract a connection and not therefore easily visible.] What is
meant by saying there is a connection between his "politics and his
philosophy"? Well, that there is a _logical_ connection, for example? But what
kind of logic? Clearly a person can have inconsistent beliefs: so we cannot
ever _deduce_ that because a person believes X they also believe what follows
from X. Also most 'thoughts' we believe are logically distinct in that one does
not follow, by logical necessity, from the other. At the same time many
persons, including philosophers, aim for consistency and what underpins their
thought in one respect may likely underpin their thought in other respects: for
these reasons alone it would be very surprising if there were no connection
between a philosopher's "philosophy" and their political outlook. To say there
was no connection would be tantamount to saying they were obtuse as to the
political implications of their "philosophical"
thought, or to claim that their "philosophy" pertains to a realm hermetically
sealed from political or social life.
So, it is not a logical necessity or inescapable deduction that someone with
H's "philosophy" would be a Nazi anymore than it is impossible that someone
with a Poppn. "conjectural" view of knowledge could espouse totalitarianism [as
the most effective system for eliminating "mistakes" within the political and
social sphere]. But this is not anything like an strong argument in favour of
the view that there is no connection between their philosophy and their
politics or even that there is no strong underlying connection.
What we have here is another example, perhaps, where the analytic attempt to
examine _logical_ connections, may distract or blind us to the strong
underlying or intrinsic connections that nevertheless fall short of being
matters of strict inference.
> Surely nothing can
> be further from the
> triumphalist, ethnic oriented Fascism than secular
> existentialism.
Actually I can think of a lot of things, especially since there is a secular
and existentialist ethic at the core of much Fascist thinking.
And let's not forget here that much Christian theologising is clearly
anti-Christian [unless we suppose inconsistent theologies can both be properly
Christian, but this only renders the epithet "Christian" vacuous], going
against the tendency of Christ's ethics whose great strength lay, surely, in
their practical appeal to alleviate suffering without needing to offer a
philosophy or theology or even an institutionalised church authority.
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
