[lit-ideas] Re: On not judging Heidegger
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:21:58 +0900
Walter,
You are misreading me. I have no stake whatsoever in wanting philosophies to
imply politics. The "we" was merely a rhetorical device, a courteous
substitute for "if."
John
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
