[lit-ideas] Re: On not judging Heidegger
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:06:26 -0330
I'm not clear on the evidence McC implicitly appeals to in his claim that "We
would all like to believe ...." And even if true - whoever the "we" may be - I
would be interested in an explanation of why the truth of the statement that
philosophy implies politics is so desired.
(That the statement is patently false is clear: we can add to the philosophy of
language such other areas as philosophy of mind, philosophy of science,
metaphysics, philosophy of education and moral philosophy, amongst others.) Is
there something psychologically unnerving or socially disquieting about the
possibility that a form of discourse and inquiry transcends the political realm
on all 4 of Aristotle's 4 causes? Is there some form of comfort we attain in
believing that "Well, at the end of the day, y'know, it's politics all the way
down. Education, science, universities, public school curricula, DNA
sequencing, philosophy, poetry, mathematics -- nobody and nothing escapes the
causally determining forces of the political domain."
Walter O
MUN
Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> We would all like to believe that philosophies imply politics. But, as
> Richard Rorty points out, that is simply not true. When it comes to
> philosophy of language, Nazi Heidegger and social democrat John Dewey have
> similar views.
>
> Why should we care? Because while a bastard may be a bastard, he may
> nonetheless be a smart bastard from whom we can learn something besides how
> to be a bastard.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Lawrence Helm
> <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > I have been reading the preface to*The Coming of the Third Reich* by
> > Richard J. Evans (2003), and while Evans does not have Heidegger
> > specifically in mind, what he writes on page xx must apply to Heidegger:
> >
> > ?. . . it seems to me inappropriate for a work of history to indulge in
> the
> > luxury of moral judgment. For one thing, it is unhistorical; for another,
> > it is arrogant and presumptuous. I cannot know how I would have behaved
> if
> > I had lived under the Third Reich, if only because, if I had lived then, I
> > would have been a different person from the one I am now. Since the early
> > 1990s, the historical study of Nazi Germany, and increasingly that of
> other
> > subjects too, has been invaded by concepts and approaches derived from
> > morality, religion and the law . . . they do not belong in a work of
> > history. As Ian Kershaw has remarked: ?for an outsider, a non-German who
> > never experienced Nazism, it is perhaps too easy to criticise, to expect
> > standards of behavior which it was well-nigh impossible to attain in the
> > circumstances. At this distance of time, the same principle holds good
> for
> > the great majority of Germans, too. So I have tried as far as possible to
> > avoid using language that carries a moral, religious or ethical baggage
> with
> > it. The purpose of this book is to understand: it is up to the reader to
> > judge.
> >
> > ?Understanding how and why the Nazis came to power is as important today
> as
> > it ever was, perhaps, as memory fades, even more so. We need to get into
> > the minds of the Nazis themselves. We need to discover why their
> opponents
> > failed to stop them. We need to grasp the nature and operation of the
> Nazi
> > dictatorship once it was established. We need to figure out the processes
> > through which the Third Reich plunged Europe and the world into a war of
> > unparalleled ferocity that ended in its own cataclysmic collapse. There
> > were other catastrophes in the first half of the twentieth century, most
> > notably, perhaps, the reign of terror unleashed by Stalin in Russia during
> > the 1930s. But none has had such a profound or lasting effect. From its
> > enthronement of racial discrimination and hatred at the centre of its
> > ideology to its launching of a ruthless and destructive war of conquest,
> the
> > Third Reich has burned itself onto the modern world?s consciousness as no
> > other regime . . . has ever managed to do. . . .?
> >
> >
> >
> > *COMMENT: * I quibble a bit with Evans in that, though a reader, I don?t
> > wish to judge either. I will be satisfied (perhaps) with just knowing.
> > Heidegger?s situation seems unique. No former Nazi not guilty of war
> crimes
> > has been held to the high standards he has ? and not him personally any
> > longer, since he died in 1976, but his reputation. To some extent we know
> > the reason for that. He is considered by many to be the most important
> > philosopher of the 20th century; so anything that impinges upon,
> > especially anything that detracts from his reputation as a philosopher,
> will
> > be of interest to intellectuals in the West ? and perhaps to intellectuals
> > in parts of the rest of the world as well.
> >
> > Also, he is held to a higher standard, because (we think) he
> *ought
> > to have known better*. We excuse ourselves from Evans? qualification.
> > Maybe we would have behaved just like any other German, but Heidegger was
> > ?better than? we are and *ought to have *behaved with greater insight. In
> > looking back over the previous sentence I notice ?better than? and grope
> for
> > some other qualification: ?smarter? perhaps or ?more intellectual.? We
> > consider his philosophical oeuvre, and think surely he should have known
> > better. Some stop there and condemn Heidegger, but some of us keep going.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Helm
> >
> > www.lawrencehelm.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
