Robert, I've been thinking about some things you said and haven't been able to nod off to sleep lest a few thoughts escape in the night. You wrote, "I don't think that even those who voted for impeachment would have argued that Clinton's dalliance with Ms. Lewinski had anything even remotely to do with his foreign policy, e.g. I doubt that few would have argued that; yet many did though argue that a man of such depraved morals could not be trusted to lead the nation. Something like that. "What I suggested earlier was that those who believed that the transgressions of a great or talented person did not undercut the worth of his or her achievements (the bad people can write good poetry argument) could not put this forward as defense of Heidegger, in this case, for the Romano/Faye argument did not have the form 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that,' it had the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.'" Yes, that is what Romano/Faye say, that they are inextricably bound up, and perhaps we shall never learn what that binding consists of, but moving slightly beyond - or away -- If the outside pressures, the people who "voted for impeachment," etc played no role in Clinton's ability to run the country, then yes, Clinton's ability to run the country would not be compromised, but Clinton was not permitted that freedom, people wanted to hold him accountable under their idea of how a president ought to behave. This sort of thing is true in all Liberal Democracies. We see over the years that many leaders have been forced to resign over an improper (in the eyes of the critics) dalliance with the opposite (or the same) sex. Someone might argue that it ought not to be that way, but it is. Some of the people who voted for or against a leader who is found to be engaged in something they consider immoral wish to see that leader removed from office. Whether or not he is removed depends more on the forces brought to bear than inflexible principles - in fact I don't believe there are such principles. Now if we apply that same sort of thinking to Heidegger, we find, at least Donal and I find, that we are more ready to forgive a Communist who has repented of his Communism than a Fascist who has repented of his Fascism. As far as I can tell, the main consideration that bears upon our rating Communism above Fascism is that Communism (as Marx conceived it) embodied an ideal that embraced all humanity; whereas Fascism exalted some particular ethnicity above others. The fact that Communism didn't work shoved it in the direction of National Socialism which did, or may work, at least the modern day Russians seem to be giving it a try. In moving back to Heidegger, Hugo Ott portrays Heidegger as being idealistic (an oxymoronic feeling as it turned out, but Heidegger didn't know that at the time) about German Fascism. Heidegger's "crimes" are discussed by Ott. He mistreated some colleagues and belonged to the Nazi party, but the colleagues would not have been acceptable to the Nazis anyway and if Heidegger didn't mistreat them someone else would. One can rationalize that sort of behavior for a while. Then either Heidegger backed away from the Nazi party or the Nazi party backed away from Heidegger. Ott thought the latter. So we can build a case that portrays Heidegger as no worse than many Germans who went along with the Nazi party just far enough to get along. But if we look back at the Clinton experience and apply it to Heidegger, we see that Heidegger's critics are insisting on "removing him from office." His critics are relentless and want to destroy his reputation - no resting in peace for this dead Nazi. We might object to the treatment Carlin Romano and Emmanuel Faye have subjected Heidegger to, in fact everyone who has commented seems to, but their articles carry weight. They may be rants, mere assertions, and lacking in logical content, but these critics are voting to impeach Heidegger, and their votes carry some weight. I hope it won't be too much weight. I hate articles like the ones these. But not everyone hates them. They certainly don't hate each other. Notice what Rosenbaum had to say about Romano's article. He described it ". . . a delightfully acerbic review essay by Carlin Romano . . . which discusses new revelations about Heidegger's shameless adoption of Nazism." Some of us think Romano and Rosenbaum's articles shameless. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Paul Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:25 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger? Lawrence, No, I wasn't referring to you. (Maybe I was confusing 'defenses' of Heidegger in the discussion of the Romano review with comments on this list. Who knows?) > That wasn't my objection, if you were referring to me. Romano & Faye > did indeed assert that there was a connection between Heidegger's > philosophy and his politics. However, they neglect to say what it was > -- and the sort of assertive rant they engage in doesn't inspire > confidence --that is, I am not willing to take them at their word. On > the face of it, I can't reconcile what little I know about Heidegger's > philosophy with what I know about National Socialism. I don't see the > relationship, nor has anything I've read here demonstrated one. Yes, one would need evidence, and I doubt that any of us has access to the body of correspondence, notes, personal recollections, and the like that would provide it. I'm an agnostic here, and I also have no dog in this hunt (as Clinton or LBJ might have put it). > And, if there is no correlation between Heidegger's philosophy and his > politics, then surely we can invoke the Monica Lewinski explanation: > What goes on in the privacy of the President's mind and the oval office does not > necessarily correlate to his decisions as Commander in Chief. And that is > all I'm asking for here. If there is a correlation, what is it? I don't think that even those who voted for impeachment would have argued that Clinton's dalliance with Ms. Lewinski had anything even remotely to do with his foreign policy, e.g. I doubt that few would have argued that; yet many did though argue that a man of such depraved morals could not be trusted to lead the nation. Something like that. What I suggested earlier was that those who believed that the transgressions of a great or talented person did not undercut the worth of his or her achievements (the bad people can write good poetry argument) could not put this forward as defense of Heidegger, in this case, for the Romano/Faye argument did not have the form 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that,' it had the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.' Robert Paul, still thinking about Wittgenstein and 'method' ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html