I wrote
> > Letter on Humanism for example, and the Nietzsche book - as Althusser
says,
> > the Letter was crucial for a whole generation of French thinkers in
> > freeing themselves of the influence/power of Sartre. Here was a way to
> > criticise Sartre, but also a way to utilise Heidegger without the
> > misleading existentialist jargon that was only a minor part of
> > Heidegger's work.
Vunch replied
> My impression of the "Letter" was that it had its effect because it
stated,
> if I recall correctly, that there was a battle between teachers and
students.
> By claiming that
> educational settings were the context of the class conflict, he seemed to
> have set up not only a widespread repression towards his work but also a
> reaction. The right considered Heidegger a Nazi while the left found his
> work a curiousity for awhile and now today he has become de rigouer! I
have
> thought that his emancipatory idea was the distinction between
authenticity
> and inauthenticity, but his concern with nihilism seemed to have allowed
him > a 'wait and see' attitude towards political tendencies. This seems to
> involve him in an ethical dilemma, imho.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I wanted a chance to look at the Letter
again before I replied, and I'm away from my own books and had to find it in
a library.
I don't follow the claim you're making about the teacher/student battle. I
didn't recall it when you first mentioned it, and couldn't find it on
looking again. I'm not sure Heidegger ever really understands or comes to
terms with the issue of class. Are you thinking of the Rectoral Address,
which does discuss the role of education? That was the most obvious Nazi
writing of Heidegger's, and the one that has to be read extremely carefully
as an initial way in to the whole issue of Heidegger and politics. I would
suggest that it is not simply the 'right' that found Heidegger a Nazi, and I
am unsure he is 'de rigour' for anyone...
At least, he is often mentioned, and is behind - in manifold, complicated
and various ways - a lot of people who are considered de rigour in certain
circles, but i don't see much evidence of reading him carefully going on,
outside of very specialist groups.
I think - summarising extremely crudely - the 'authentic/inauthentic'
distinction (whose translation I've mentioned briefly in another thread) is
what Heidegger was using in Being and Time, but the later work does show
considerable caution toward decision or action. The notion of Gelassenheit,
which develops out of readings of nihilism, particularly through
confrontations with Ernst Juenger and Nietzsche, is perhaps 'wait and see'
in its tendencies, but i think that underestimates what Heidegger is trying
to do. He seems to think that all mere action and decision (such as Nazism,
and his own involvement) can only work within existing understandings, that
is within technicity and metaphysics and the oblivion of being, and what
needs to be done is thinking an alternative. Nazism was not what he
originally thought, a potential solution, instead it was an extreme form of
the problem. Instead of trying to change the world, we need to understand it
better. In a way it's a reversal of Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach. (I
can't resist adding here that thinking of the 'world' is precisely part of
the problem)
Derrida's Of Spirit is, i think, the best book on Heidegger and politics,
but Dominique Janicaud's The Shadow of that Thought and Miguel de
Beistegui's Heidegger and the Political are probably better to begin with.
Again, sorry for the delay in replying.
Stuart
> > Letter on Humanism for example, and the Nietzsche book - as Althusser
says,
> > the Letter was crucial for a whole generation of French thinkers in
> > freeing themselves of the influence/power of Sartre. Here was a way to
> > criticise Sartre, but also a way to utilise Heidegger without the
> > misleading existentialist jargon that was only a minor part of
> > Heidegger's work.
Vunch replied
> My impression of the "Letter" was that it had its effect because it
stated,
> if I recall correctly, that there was a battle between teachers and
students.
> By claiming that
> educational settings were the context of the class conflict, he seemed to
> have set up not only a widespread repression towards his work but also a
> reaction. The right considered Heidegger a Nazi while the left found his
> work a curiousity for awhile and now today he has become de rigouer! I
have
> thought that his emancipatory idea was the distinction between
authenticity
> and inauthenticity, but his concern with nihilism seemed to have allowed
him > a 'wait and see' attitude towards political tendencies. This seems to
> involve him in an ethical dilemma, imho.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I wanted a chance to look at the Letter
again before I replied, and I'm away from my own books and had to find it in
a library.
I don't follow the claim you're making about the teacher/student battle. I
didn't recall it when you first mentioned it, and couldn't find it on
looking again. I'm not sure Heidegger ever really understands or comes to
terms with the issue of class. Are you thinking of the Rectoral Address,
which does discuss the role of education? That was the most obvious Nazi
writing of Heidegger's, and the one that has to be read extremely carefully
as an initial way in to the whole issue of Heidegger and politics. I would
suggest that it is not simply the 'right' that found Heidegger a Nazi, and I
am unsure he is 'de rigour' for anyone...
At least, he is often mentioned, and is behind - in manifold, complicated
and various ways - a lot of people who are considered de rigour in certain
circles, but i don't see much evidence of reading him carefully going on,
outside of very specialist groups.
I think - summarising extremely crudely - the 'authentic/inauthentic'
distinction (whose translation I've mentioned briefly in another thread) is
what Heidegger was using in Being and Time, but the later work does show
considerable caution toward decision or action. The notion of Gelassenheit,
which develops out of readings of nihilism, particularly through
confrontations with Ernst Juenger and Nietzsche, is perhaps 'wait and see'
in its tendencies, but i think that underestimates what Heidegger is trying
to do. He seems to think that all mere action and decision (such as Nazism,
and his own involvement) can only work within existing understandings, that
is within technicity and metaphysics and the oblivion of being, and what
needs to be done is thinking an alternative. Nazism was not what he
originally thought, a potential solution, instead it was an extreme form of
the problem. Instead of trying to change the world, we need to understand it
better. In a way it's a reversal of Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach. (I
can't resist adding here that thinking of the 'world' is precisely part of
the problem)
Derrida's Of Spirit is, i think, the best book on Heidegger and politics,
but Dominique Janicaud's The Shadow of that Thought and Miguel de
Beistegui's Heidegger and the Political are probably better to begin with.
Again, sorry for the delay in replying.
Stuart