[lit-ideas] Re: Heidegger's philosophy and Christianity
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 19:19:57 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Donal,
>
> Thanks
> for the response. I can see why no one responded
> earlier, and won’t any longer ask for detail
> I see now cannot exist.
Useful detail (that those more familiar with Heidegger and his 'exegesis' might
wish to offer) could be detail showing his philosophy is not consistent with
Fascism - but, as you seem to accept H's philosophy supports a form of Fascism,
I won't now ask for detail that for you cannot exist.
> I’ll move away, then, from my
> question as I conceived it to your response; which seems
> psychological in nature. If I could rephrase what I
> take to be your
> argument (in order to see if I understand it) it
> would be as follows:
>
> Philosophers will have developed their
> thoughts to a much greater degree of
> consistency than ordinary people.
>
> Since
> Heidegger sought consistency throughout his life in his
> philosophy, he is bound to have been consistent in the
> rest of his life, including his
> politics.
>
> Therefore there must be consistency between
> Heidegger’s philosophy and his
> politics.
This is a fair enough summary though expressed in too absolute terms: in my
argument I would prefer to say "he is _likely_ bound", "there would _likely_ be
consistency", rather than put these as cases of necessity.
> Two objections occur to me (assuming I understand
> you). The first has to do with
> psychology. I have been slowly working my way through
> Freud’s The Complete Introductory Lectures on
> Psychology. Freud might object that we
> (including philosophers) don’t understand ourselves well
> enough to know whether we are being consistent or not.
> So while Heidegger might have striven for consistency,
> the inconsistencies buried in his subconscious may
> have rendered them contradictory.
There is a big difference between mooting this as a possibility to be always
considered and showing that it is an actuality that must be accepted in H's
particular case. What subconscious drives and juices could explain how H's
work, despite his own aims and understanding, was anti-Fascist or non-Fascist?
And what is the detail of this explanation (which would seem "psychological")?
If there is such inconsistency then surely this ought to be shown, not just
asserted or suggested.
> The
> second objection has to do with Heidegger’s history, at least the
> history provided us in Hugo Ott’s book on Heidegger.
> Heidegger was indeed attracted to a form of Fascism,
> but
> it was a form of his own conception and Ott
> doesn’t explain what it was.
> Heidegger thought he was influential enough to sway
> Hitler’s Fascists to his way of
> thinking (whatever that was). But as it developed,
> Hitler’s Fascists were never
> impressed with Heidegger. They used
> him for his publicity
> value
> only,
> but when he insisted on thinking for himself about important
> matters, they shunted him aside and ignored him. The
> wearing of the brown shirt, etc. was his way of
> going
> along with the Nazis on unimportant matters in order to sway
> them to his thinking on important ones.
Most of this is all-too-plausible, and accords with H's own apologetics in his
_Der Spiegel_ interview, but does not take H out of the Fascist camp.
>Since
> Heidegger’s plan never worked, we
> don’t know what form of Fascism
> Heidegger’s politics
> might have taken. What we
> do know with a good deal of certainty, is that it did not
> correspond well enough with Nazi thinking to cause the Nazis
> to want to accept
> Heidegger as their philosopher.
It was never likely that the Fuerherprinzip would be converted from a Hitler-
to a Heidegger-prinzip. That both sides entered into a temporary marriage of
convenience of some sort may be true (as indeed did Nazis enter other such
marriages with others both inside and outside their grouping, including of
course the Communists) but does not take H or his "philosophy" out of the
Fascist camp. The intellectual underpinnings of Nazism, and perhaps of
Heidegger's own philosophy, are so much doctrinaire metaphysical posturings and
sound and fury signifying little of intellectual worth, that one might wonder
how a dispute between Hitlerians and Heideggerians might be articulated in
intellectual terms. [In reality the Hitlerians would soon lose interest and
pull a gun - "I don't argue, I shoot" as a Nazi once said.]
> Assuming
> your consistency-argument, I agree that there was a
> form of Fascism
> (or something of that approximation) that Heidegger
> believed, but what it was isn’t known (as far as I
> know),
> and how Heidegger’s later philosophy may have
> related to it isn’t known
> either. But this doesn’t seem a useful argument to
> suggest that Heidegger...
Not sure I suggested Heidegger consistently favoured Hitler's form of Fascism.
It would seem more likely to me that Heidegger favoured Heidegger's form of
Fascism.
But I am no expert of course. And even the experts seem to disagree on the
connectedness of H's "philosophy" and politics and even of their respective
interpretation.
Best,
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:
