Some replies here to Romano?s over-the-top review of Emmanuel Faye?s book seem to address an argument he did not make, an argument common in the history of ideas: that someone?s unsavory views or vicious acts diminish whatever he or she creates or writes, sometimes beyond redemption--so that if it turns out that Leonardo was a child molester, the Mona Lisa should banished from the Louvre.
That is not what?s being argued in the book he damns with excessive praise. In the discussion following the piece, ?zdenekv? explains this fairly well,
?The Heideggerians have always been keen to defend their master by drawing a sharp distinction between his philosophical work and his politics and in this way they can make the following defensive move : "you are confusing two different things and hence are guilty of a type of category mistake or at least are not thinking clearly : you are confusing questions of philosophical merit which has to do with things like whether what the philosopher says is true , plausible , valid , sound , novel et. with questions that have to do with whether he was a good , wise and sensible person. But these are two different questions and therefore ( this is the key move ) it is simply confused to think that you can show that Heidegger's philosophical work has no philosophical merit by showing that he was misguided in his political judgments."
?But this classic attempt to get H off the hook doesn?t stand up because the argument falsely assumes that there are no connections between H's philosophy and his politics. But that assumption is false and once this point is made the critic of Heidegger (Romano is making similar point I think ) can make the following two points : a) since there is an intimate internal connection between H's work and his Nazism, Heidegger's politics is a reductio of his philosophy or at least parts of it , and b) since there are intimate connections between H?s philosophy and his politics his philosophy constitutes a philosophical rationalization of Nazism.?
Whether H?s Nazism is part and parcel of his philosophy, so that the latter is an expression of the former, I do not know; but an argument of the form, ?Jefferson?s views on slavery are one thing, but his political views are another,? is, as an argument against Romano/Faye, a mere ignoratio elenchi.
Robert Paul The Reed Institute ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
