Herr Heidegger famously claimed that he found the answer to the question (allegedly forgotten by absolutely everyone else) "why is there something rather than nothing?" the answer he gave was made famous by the yellow submarine. He is also very famous for the solution to the conundrum of the verb "to be" aside from anything else, can anybody tell me what his answer is to the question of "why something instead of nothing?" is, if so we'll appreciate the insight On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Phil Enns wrote:
I had written a summary of an article found at: http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/ Heidegger was a supporter of Nazism His writings are hard to understand Therefore ban his books and block any future publications R. Paul responds: "Whatever one thinks of Heidegger, this is hardly the argument." Robert does not here tell us what he thinks is the argument, but we can look at another of his posts to give us an idea. "the Romano/Faye argument ... had the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.' I have not read the book by Faye so I don't know how the Faye argument works, but I have read the Romano piece and it is not, as Robert claims, of the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.' Romano begins with this gem: "How many scholarly stakes in the heart will we need before Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), still regarded by some as Germany's greatest 20th-century philosopher, reaches his final resting place as a prolific, provincial Nazi hack? Overrated in his prime, bizarrely venerated by acolytes even now, the pretentious old Black Forest babbler makes one wonder whether there's a university-press equivalent of wolfsbane, guaranteed to keep philosophical frauds at a distance." In these two sentences can be found all the important parts of the 'argument' that follows: Heidegger was a Nazi, he was a pretentious babbler, and publication of his works should be stopped. Shortly after this introduction, Romano goes on: "A third [philosophy reference book] praises his opposition to nihilism, an odd compliment for a conservative, nationalist thinker whose antihumanistic apotheosis of ruler over ruled helped grease the path of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s." Presumably this claim regarding the relationship of Heidegger's thought to Hitler gets us close to Robert's form of the argument, but all we have is a claim, not the argument. That is Romano asserts that Heidegger's thought greased the path, but he doesn't bother to give us an argument either from Faye or one of his own. But at this point Romano gets around to Faye's book, with this summary: "Aim? To expose the oafish metaphysician's vulgar, often vicious 1930s attempt to become Hitler's chief academic tribune, and his post-World War II contortions to escape proper judgment for his sins." This is hardly the form of argument Robert suggests characterizes both the Faye and Romano pieces. Romano is not interested in giving us an argument about the relationship between Heidegger's thought and his relationship to Nazism, but rather making Heidegger pay for his sins. The sixth paragraph of the Romano piece gives us an even clearer picture of his intentions: "Unfortunately, Faye's scrupulously documented study, like Jytte Klausen's controversial The Cartoons That Shook the World, about depictions of Muhammad, lacks the satirical illustrations that might have given it knockdown force. In the case of Heidegger, it may be that only ridicule?not further proof of his sordid 1930s acts?can save us." In short, arguments like those presumably found in Faye are not enough, only ridicule of Heidegger can produce the desired result. And in this article, contrary to Robert's claim, Romano gives us the ridicule without the argument. If Romano feels Faye does not do enough damage to Heidegger with his arguments, he praises Faye for doing something not normally done in academic circles: "To his credit, Faye takes the usually avoided logical step of articulating that goal. He essentially calls on publishers to stop churning out Heidegger volumes as they would sensibly desist from hate speech. Similarly, he hopes librarians will not stock Heidegger's continuing Gesamtausgabe (collected edition), shepherded by the Heidegger family, a project that Faye rightly attacks as sanitized and incomplete." Again, Romano claims that Faye's arguments are insufficient. What is necessary is the cessation of all Heidegger publications. Over half way through the article, and there is still nothing of an argument that has the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.' Instead, we have claims regarding Heidegger's personal relationship to Nazism, ridicule of his writing style, and the conclusion that Heidegger's works should be no longer published. The next three paragraphs are taken up with Romano ridiculing the sorts of books that publishers should no longer produce. At no point does Romano provide us with reasons, only what is the necessary response, i.e. ridicule. Over half way through the article, Romano finally gives us something that resembles Robert's form of the argument: "Faye's leitmotif throughout is that Heidegger, from his earliest writings, drew on reactionary ideas in early-20th-century Germany to absolutely exalt the state and the Volk over the individual, making Nazism and its Blut und Boden ("Blood and Soil") rhetoric a perfect fit. Heidegger's Nazism, he writes, "is much worse than has so far been known." (Exactly how bad remains unclear because the Heidegger family still restricts access to his private papers.)" Romano does not here give us the details of Faye's argument, only a summary of the argument. Romano ominously adds, the argument might be even more serious because there are writings of Heidegger that are not yet public. But, Romano only refers to the form of the argument 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other.' If we want an actual argument of Robert's form, half way through the article we still have not seen it. What Romano gives us are a number of examples of Heidegger's slimyness. "Lacking any respect for Heidegger as thinker, Faye writes that the philosopher Hannah Arendt so deeply admired 'has done nothing but blend the characteristic opacity of his teaching with the darkness of the phenomenon.'" "The unpublished seminar of 1933-34 identifies the people with a 'community of biological stock and race. ? Thus, through Heidegger's teaching, the racial conceptions of Nazism enter philosophy.'" "The "reality of Nazism," asserts Faye, inspired Heidegger's works "in their entirety and nourished them at the root level." He provides evidence of Heidegger's "intensity" of commitment to Hitler, his constant use of "the words most operative among the National Socialists," such as "combat" (Kampf), "sacrifice" (Opfer) and völkisch (which Faye states has a strong anti-Semitic connotation). He also cites Heidegger's use of epithets against professors such as the philologist Eduard Fraenkel ("the Jew Fraenkel") and his fervid dislike for "the growing Jewification" that threatens "German spiritual life," mirroring Hitler's discourse in Mein Kampf about "Jewified universities."" What is curious in these examples is that, unlike Robert's 'inextricably bound', what we have are cases that describe a 'blending', an 'entering' and 'inspiration'. That is, instead of an argument that demonstrates the inextricable boundness of Heidegger's thought to Nazism, we have the much more mundane argument that Heidegger's though made Heidegger's relationship to Nazism smoother. After dabbling with the possibility of an argument, Romano returns to ridicule, with claims of Heidegger's "claptrap" and his rejection as a philosopher. And should we miss the intention of Romano, the penultimate paragraph lays it out: "It would seem that Heidegger, likewise, will continue to flourish until even "Continental" philosophers mock him to the hilt. His influence will end only when they, and the broader world of intellectuals, recognize that scholarly evidence fingers the scowling proprietor of Heidegger's hut as a buffoon produced by German philosophy's mystical tradition. He should be the butt of jokes, not the subject of dissertations." This is an all too long post on an article that most certainly does not deserve the attention, but I do respect Robert. Romano certainly does at one or two points refer to an argument in Faye along the form of 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other', but that argument is not anywhere to be found in Romano. Instead, what we have is Romano's own admission that ridicule, not arguments, are needed. If Robert can point to an argument along the form 'this and that are inextricably bound up, and you can't have the one without the other', I would be interested. To be honest, I don't know what such an argument would look like since it would combine necessity, with philosophical arguments and historical contingencies. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ?e ??, ?????e?? ?a?eda?µ?????? ? ? ? ?t? t?de ?e?µe?a, t??? ?e???? ??µas? pe???µe???. /begin/read__>sig.file: postal address palma University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy 3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building Howard College Campus Durban 4041 South Africa Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27] 031-2602292 Fax [+27] 031-2603031 mobile 07 62 36 23 91 calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391 EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxx EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx MY OFFICE IS A290@Mtb *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod 29 rue d'Ulm f-75005 paris france email me for details if needed at palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________ This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the business of this entity. If you received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify the sender.
